Equitable Life: Penrose Inquiry

Lord Higgins: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there is any restriction on Lord Penrose's inquiry into Equitable Life from making a recommendation that compensation should be paid to anyone found to have suffered as a result of failure of regulatory agencies to protect the interests of policyholders.
	My Lords, I beg to ask—rather unexpectedly—the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to respond rather than to answer unexpectedly. Lord Penrose is independent of the Treasury. It is a matter for him what recommendations he makes.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The Penrose inquiry, which has been investigating since August 2001 the failure of the Treasury and related departments, was set up by the Treasury on terms of reference determined by the Treasury in a form which the Treasury knew might prevent the report being published in full. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Ombudsman has felt inhibited from making a full report over a whole period because of the Penrose inquiry. Why was the inquiry set up in a form which might prevent the report being published in full? Will the Government accept any recommendations which are made in the Penrose report?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not respond to the two statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, before his two questions, although I happen to disagree with both of them. The inquiry was not set up with any preconditions; it was set up on terms acceptable to an independent judge—Lord Penrose. The only basis on which there would not be publication would be, for example, when it would be a criminal offence to disclose confidential information which had been received by the regulator. That is the only kind of constraint on publication. Otherwise, there will be publication.

Lord Higgins: And the second question, my Lords?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry, my Lords. The second—

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the second question was whether the Government will accept the recommendations of the report.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, how do we know what the report is going to say?

Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that behind these formal statements there are real people, many of them elderly, for whom justice delayed is justice not at all? Is there any sense of urgency in this process?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally; it is certainly very important for those who have suffered as a result of the experience of Equitable Life to receive any comfort or redress due to them as quickly as possible. However, I should remind the House that Lord Penrose has been investigating 50 years of the activities of Equitable Life. If a comparison is being made with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, she and her predecessor were investigating only two years.

Electricity Supply

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What strategies they are pursuing to guarantee security of electricity supplies for the future.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, maintaining the reliability of energy supplies is a key goal set out in the Government's energy White Paper. Through competitive markets participants have incentives to maintain reliable supplies of electricity. These incentives are backed by licence conditions and statutory obligations, enforced by Ofgem. The Government have a role to provide information to the market. A major component of this is our work with Ofgem, through the joint energy security of supply working group, to monitor energy security. The group's third report is on the DTI website and will be placed in the Library of the House.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer but does he recall that this week there have been no fewer than three Questions on the issue of electricity supplies—one from the Conservative Benches, one from the Labour Benches and now one from the Liberal Democrats—indicating the importance which we generally attach to this issue? Does he agree that the electricity capacity of this country is ageing rapidly and that over the next 15 years or so much of the nuclear and coal-fired plant could be withdrawn from the market? Does he further agree that in the mean time the gas price has risen very substantially—it has doubled in the past year—and is likely to rise again as the UK becomes a major importer, thus putting companies off investing in new gas-fired electricity plant? In those circumstances, how is this widening gap in electricity capacity to be filled?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has—as have previous questioners this week—identified quite rightly the challenges that face the Government and our society in the changing electricity supply environment that we clearly foresee for the future. But he will recognise that these issues were addressed in the White Paper. There have been Questions which have expressed anxiety about this coming winter on which we were able to give full reassurances. As to the longer term—which is the burden of the noble Lord's Question today—the White Paper clearly identifies how we intend to supplant former systems of electricity generation with newer ones.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise—

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while I do not in the least—

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Does the Minister acknowledge that an increasing number of people recognise that there will not be security of supply unless the Government turn their option for nuclear power into reality? Is he aware that some 80 constituencies represented in another place have civil nuclear installations and that some 60,000 people are currently employed in civil nuclear generation? Is the Minister further aware that there are no undergraduate courses in nuclear engineering and only one post-graduate course in that subject? How will that option be made a reality in the light of those facts?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was in his place when this Question was addressed earlier in the week. I indicated then the resources that we are making available towards increased research for the nuclear industry because the Government recognise that resources are necessary to sustain the concept of the nuclear option against a background of changing circumstances. The noble Lord is right: there is a substantial amount of employment in nuclear energy at present. He will also recognise that it is a long-running programme of nuclear rundown—the final power station does not close until 2035. The Government will of course continue to keep the situation under active review.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, is not the difficulty that the Government's White Paper is not an action plan but an essay, which sets out, in an academic way, certain elements in the Question? Surely the Minister would agree that we require a policy that will lay down the basis for future supplies of electricity.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the White Paper is not an essay. It is a very clear analysis of energy needs, the current provision that we have available and the strategies that we need to pursue to guarantee energy needs for this country. As the noble Lord will recognise, the Government are already acting against some of the perspectives of the White Paper. When anxieties are expressed about current supplies of electricity, we are able to demonstrate that we have taken action and that that action has been taken in the market place to guarantee that we have a sufficient cushion to supply electricity to the country.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Bishop!

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, does the Minister share my memory, which I hope is correct, of a quotation associated with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the principal competition he faced at the Coal Board was the second jumper? If he did make that observation, does it not underline, in our present situation, the need to make the general public aware of our profligacy and extravagance with energy use? That must be one of the major foci of strategy at present.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. He has reminded the House of a fact which I think has not been covered so widely in previous short debates on this issue. I refer to energy conservation and the way in which we can more jealously guard our fuel stocks in every respect. That means that for householders, too, there are ways in which energy conservation can be followed. The Government are concerned to produce incentives towards that end.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he worries some of his friends when he talks about the nuclear industry and uses the word "rundown"? That does not imply an open mind towards the options—it indicates a closed mind and a strategy that is already determined. Some of his friends and other Members of this House are saying that there should be no closing of existing options unless and until alternative sources of energy are not only theoretically available but also actually in place.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I apologise if I have created anxieties for my noble friend. He has given voice to these anxieties on more than one occasion this week. Let me assure him that when I have referred to changes in the nuclear power industry, I am merely reflecting the natural life of nuclear installations. He will appreciate that the date for the closure of such installations runs from 2007 right through to 2035. Of course, within that framework, we must ensure that any gap which is left by the decommissioning of such stations is filled by alternative energy supplies. I have indicated a number of ways in which we intend to do this, not least our involvement in substantial negotiations for the supply of liquid natural gas from abroad. This country will not be self-sufficient in energy, as it has been for several decades, so we have to look to supplies from elsewhere.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, may I reciprocate what the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said the other day? On this occasion I ask: is the Minister is aware that I warmly agree with everything his noble friend has said?
	It would be very unfair for us to blame the Minister. He is, after all, merely the vehicle which carries the DTI's verbiage on a very difficult subject. Will the noble Lord convey to the DTI that it has failed? When I asked him the other day for details about what is called the "nuclear option" and the cost, he never referred to the cost in any numbered terms. I hope that he will do so.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this is the second time this week that we have seen the emergence of that healthy alliance between the noble Lord and my noble friend on these issues. I can assure the noble Lord that I took back to the DTI the questions that were addressed to me earlier this week, and we examined any shortfall that there may be with regard to the answers.
	I reiterate that we are conscious of the fact that a certain amount of electricity generation will of course come from the nuclear source. We are keeping the nuclear option open and investing in the necessary research and skills to guarantee that this option becomes viable.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, are there technological factors that make immutable the closure dates of 2007 to 2035 that the Minister mentioned in his reply? Alternatively, is one way of improving our security in the long term to extend the lifetimes of those stations? Are the Government working on that possibility?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will recognise the public anxiety and concern about aspects of nuclear generation. That is why the Government are not putting an enormous reliance on the nuclear option for the future. However, all strategies will be adopted against the background of the resources that are made available. All strategies will be pursued to extend the nuclear option if we fail to fill the necessary gap from other sources. Noble Lords will recognise that the Government are active in ensuring that there are incentives to alternative energy supplies to fulfil the broad objectives outlined in the White Paper.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, will the Minister say what progress is being made by the local energy agencies set up to encourage the generation locally of power from renewable sources? I declare an interest, having been asked to be a trustee of the Marches Energy Agency. What arrangements are in place and what price will be paid if there is surplus power from such local schemes to be fed into the National Grid?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate identifies an important consideration. Against a tough target of hitting 10 per cent of our energy supplies from renewable sources by 2010, we will consider all forms of energy generation, such as those that he has identified. We are concerned to give every incentive in that area. Of course, if there is an economic perspective as regards any surplus from such sources available to the National Grid, we shall seek to follow that.

Driving without Insurance/Road Fund Disc

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their estimate of the number of motorists driving while (a) uninsured and (b) without a road fund disc; and how many convictions for each offence there were in the most recent 12-month period.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, estimates from the insurance industry are that there about 1.25 million motorists driving while uninsured. There were 266,750 convictions for driving while uninsured in 2001, the latest year for which figures are available. The Government estimate that 1.76 million vehicles evaded vehicle excise duty in 2002. In 2002–3, DVLA campaigns and other activity resulted in 265,000 convictions, 402,000 out-of-court settlements, and 152,000 induced relicensings.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that that is law breaking on a pretty massive scale? Have the Government any proposals to tackle the problem without necessarily over-burdening the police yet more—in other words, by using traffic wardens? Would it be helpful to consider making it obligatory for drivers to have on their motor cars evidence that they are properly insured, next to their road fund licence disc?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have indicated, both by the figures that I quoted for convictions and prosecutions over the past year and by the regulations introduced last Friday as part of a package, that the Government are very serious about cracking down on the issue of law breaking. I emphasise to my noble friend that which would be widely appreciated. The attractive feature of the windscreen insurance disc is that it would be visible to any investigating authority. The disadvantage is obvious: it is the driver who is insured, not the vehicle. The problem is that we would not be able to establish a disc that could cover every conceivable driver of every car.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that driving without insurance is particularly serious and could attract a custodial sentence—although, unfortunately, the Bench in my experience does not exercise that right often enough? Will the Minister tell me whether the Government have any plans for alternative sanctions—for example, the seizure of the car in question?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right that an uninsured driver is committing a serious offence. The penalty for that offence is very serious, too. The wider public, including magistrates, are increasingly aware that the Government are determined to crack down on the offence. Therefore, we are seeing increased prosecution, which I have no doubt will lead to increased sentences more commensurate with the crime that the noble Viscount mentioned.
	More generally, the Government are concerned about the question of detection. It will be the case that, via the motor industry database, which includes all insured drivers, the linkage with the police will give the opportunity for the police to be able to identify whether a car has insurance for the driver. The difficulty is obvious—that the insurance may cover only one or two drivers with regard to the vehicle.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords—

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—

Lord Jacobs: My Lords—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is plenty of time. I suggest that we hear from the Liberal Democrats, from the Conservative Benches, then from these Benches.

Lord Jacobs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that those cars without a road tax fund licence probably, in the main, also do not have garages, so they are easily observable in the street? Will he consider a scheme that would solve the problem—to have a national telephone line that members of the public could phone and could advise about cars that were on the street without exhibiting a road fund licence? If the cars were then to be towed away, I venture to suggest that, within a matter of months if not weeks, there would be few unlicensed cars on the road.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord ought not to underestimate the degree of activity that obtains along exactly those lines. Rightly, members of the public feel aggrieved when they see cars parked on the public highway without the appropriate tax disc and, therefore, make the appropriate complaints. Those are followed up to a degree and cars are on occasion towed away and penalties inflicted. However, as we shall emphasise in a major publicity campaign, we are rather more concerned to express to the overwhelmingly law-abiding public that we intend to crack down on that offence. That should have the effect of increasing the numbers who ensure that their cars are licensed.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, how does the Minister define "crack down" or "success"? Crack down does not mean to me letting 1.25 million people get away with being uninsured.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is exactly right. The noble Earl will have recognised from my Answer that I said how many prosecutions had been sought with regard to the issue. The problem is acute, and that is why we have introduced new regulations to make compliance more effective and why we are serious about the issue.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, how about having a minimum third-party insurance paid up for the vehicle at the same time as the road fund licence? The road fund licence is merely a tax, which is rarely applied to the benefit of motorists, whereas third-party insurance would be very much to the benefit of the general public and motorists.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are in constant talks with the insurance industry about the situation. It is important that any scheme that is introduced does not increase insurance costs for the average law-abiding motorist.

EU Draft Constitutional Treaty

Baroness Park of Monmouth: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to ensure that both Houses of Parliament are able to influence decisions on the draft European Union constitutional treaty before it is agreed by them at the intergovernmental conference.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, Parliament has already influenced the Government's decisions on the draft treaty and will continue to do so. Two Members of this House and two Members of the other House participated in the Convention on the Future of Europe in their capacity as parliamentarians. Parliamentary committees have this year issued 14 reports on the convention and IGC, all of which have been studied carefully by the Government. Ministers are attending eight committee sittings this autumn to update Parliament on progress of the negotiations. That is, of course, in addition to debates on the Floor of both Houses.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government have said that they do not want a referendum because Parliament must judge? How does she reconcile that with the fact that, for instance, the major report by the Select Committee on the European Union in this House has not been debated and there will be no time to debate it in the near future? It is all very well to say that the Government have studied matters; I am talking about the voice of both Houses of Parliament. As I understand it, if a treaty comes before them, they have to accept it or reject it in toto. They cannot then say, "We do not like this particular decision". There are some vital decisions such as the defence veto, the future of NATO and many others that I could name. So far as I know, neither House has discussed on the Floor of the House the very detailed work that has been done by the appropriate committee.
	I hope that the Minister will agree with and put forward the proposition that the Government should resist pressure by the EU to reach decisions on the treaty by the end of this year. There is no need for such haste. With more time we could have proper debate.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. There will indeed be time, on 3rd December, for debate on the excellent report from the House of Lords committee to which she refers. I hope that noble Lords will take the opportunity to participate in that debate. The Government welcome that report, as the Foreign Secretary has said. As for further scrutiny by this Parliament, a Bill to implement the new treaty will come before both Houses when parliamentary time allows.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, perhaps I may mention one paradox in this whole affair. Can my noble friend confirm that all noble Lords are able to participate in the Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference of another place, which usually attracts about a dozen Members of this House? Is it not a little odd that even on the famous occasion when the Daily Mail splashed across its front page the headline "Blueprint for Tyranny", the committee could not get a quorum to discuss it?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is extraordinary that, despite continual calls from noble Lords and Members of another place for more and more scrutiny, Members are not taking this unprecedented opportunity for scrutiny in both Houses. Sometimes it is difficult even to find a quorum.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, is it not almost unprecedented to have repeated sittings of Joint Committees of the two Houses during IGCs? The Government have introduced that novel procedure, which is welcome. Alas, it is not being adequately supported by the Members of either House. It would be very difficult for the Government to do more in these circumstances.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. I agree that scrutiny is available and continuing. As he said, such access to a committee is unprecedented. I also thank him and my noble friend Lord Tomlinson for their excellent and expert work on this subject.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness can rest assured that, as chairman of the European Union Committee, I am learning, albeit rather slowly, to accept all small mercies when it comes to finding time in the Chamber for a debate on our reports; I think that we currently have nine in the backlog. However, does she not agree that it is rather unfortunate that this particular report should not find time for what I would call a full debate? The truth of the matter is that on 3rd December we shall be taking note of the report during the foreign affairs, defence and overseas development day of the debate on the Loyal Address. I am grateful that we have even that, but, frankly, it is not enough.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as I said in an earlier answer, the Government very much welcome the report from the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the work that has been done on it. I hope that we will have ample opportunity on 3rd December to discuss the report.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Government White Paper on the constitution says that Parliament will have the opportunity to examine the treaty line by line? It does not go on to say that we will have no opportunity, as my noble friend has reminded us, to alter a single dot or comma of the treaty. Would it not have been a shade more honest and open to have said that in the White Paper and to tell people the real position?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the treaty, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will know, is being discussed by governments. When it comes back to this place it will enter a process that has been used for the Maastricht Treaty, the Single European Act, the Amsterdam Treaty and all other treaties. That will not be a surprise to noble Lords.

Criminal Justice Bill

A message was brought from the Commons, That they do not insist on their disagreement to an amendment made by your Lordships to the Criminal Justice Bill; they insist on their disagreement to certain other amendments, but have made amendments to the words so restored to the Bill, to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships; and they have made consequential amendments to the Bill, to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I hope that that is clear!
	I beg to move that the House do adjourn until noon. The reason for doing so is that amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill are still being processed following discussions on how to resolve the differences between the two Houses. At 12 o'clock I shall come back to the House to make a further business Statement about when we expect to start consideration of Commons amendments on the Criminal Justice Bill and on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, and when it will be convenient to repeat the Statement that the Foreign Secretary is making in the House of Commons on the terrorist attack in Istanbul.
	Moved, That the House do adjourn until noon.—(Lord Grocott.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am sorry about this delay. Earlier today the Government tabled amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill but those amendments have now been withdrawn. We are trying to understand why and, as the noble Lord the Chief Whip says, discussions are proceeding. In the interests of reaching agreement, I think that the House should rise as suggested until noon. I am sorry that the House is inconvenienced in this way but, as I say, I think and I hope that it is in the interests of reaching agreement.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 11.38 a.m. to noon.]

Lord Grocott: My Lords, as promised I now give the House further information. I shall formally move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 12.45 p.m. By then the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill will have been processed. I wish to emphasise that I make no criticism whatever of the Public Bill Office, the staff of which are working heroically at this difficult time.
	Once we have considered the Commons message on the Criminal Justice Bill, the House will immediately consider the Commons message on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. When we have completed that, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement made in the other place by the Foreign Secretary on the terrorist attacks in Istanbul. The start of business will be a little later than we should all like, but I hope that the sequence is now clear; that is, the Criminal Justice Bill, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, then the Statement. I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 12.45 p.m.
	Moved, That the House do adjourn until 12.45 p.m.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 12.1 to 12.45 p.m.]

Lord Grocott: My Lords, as the House will recall, I have twice had to postpone the start of our proceedings. On behalf, I think that it is fair to say, of the usual channels and not simply myself acting singly, we shall have to ask for a further 30 minutes' postponement. The reason is to ensure that when the House comes to consider its business, everything will be in order so that we can do so in a coherent way. I say that with every finger crossed, but I really believe this time that when I say 1.15 p.m., that will actually mean 1.15 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1.15 p.m.
	Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1.15 p.m.—(Lord Grocott.)

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will we have 10 minutes to look at the amendments before we come back into the Chamber? It is pretty hopeless trying to put one's mind to something handed to one only three minutes before. They are not available now.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, the purpose of the delay is to ensure that the amendments can be considered properly, and that noble Lords can see what is tabled before the House sits again at 1.15. I hope that the House will believe and trust me that the adjournment will be for its convenience.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I concur with that. The adjournment will be for the convenience of the House. Some of the amendments are very complicated. It would be very unsatisfactory to deal with them as manuscript amendments, which is a theoretical possibility open to us. Given the complexities of some of the amendments and the attempts being made to reach agreement, it is in the interests of the House that the Public Bill Office has time to do its work properly. That is what we expect from it, and we get such excellent service from it. If it has the time to do that work, we can proceed with our business. Like the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip, I believe that this will be the last postponement.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. We are obviously all very distressed at the further delay, but we believe that it was inevitable, unfortunately, because of the complexity of the amendments. The Public Bill Office is certainly doing its best to try to get them to us as soon as possible.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, not a smidgen of criticism attaches to the noble Lord or the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. That is acknowledged by everyone. However, is it not the case that someone slightly higher up—I would hesitate to name him or her—has in effect been withdrawing agreements that were already made? That is why the pickle in which the noble Lord finds himself is as big, vinegary and full of gherkins as it is possible to have.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I was careful to minimise the possibility that anything that I might have said might make it more difficult to reach agreement in the very near future. It is in the interests of both good legislation and the House that agreement should happen, which is why I support the further adjournment. I hope that we can agree to it.

Lord Elton: My Lords, in the most irenic sense, when will the newly printed amendments be available, so that we can converge on them and read them for as long as possible?

Lord Grocott: My Lords, the answer to that has to be the standard one; namely, as soon as anyone humanly can deliver them. That will be in time for us to start our proceedings at 1.15.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 12.49 to 1.15 p.m.]

Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS INSISTENCE ON DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS SO RESTORED TO THE BILL, AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 69 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

32 Clause 41, Leave out Clause 41 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	32A Because it should be possible for a defendant to apply for a trial to be conducted without a jury. The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	32B Because it is inappropriate to make provision for applications by the defendant for trials to be conducted without jury. The Commons insist on their disagreement to this amendment but propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
	32C Page 27, line 40, leave out "must" and insert "may"

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 32 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32C.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 32 and do agree with the commons in their Amendment No. 32C.—(Lord Grocott.)

Lord Hunt of Wirral: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 32, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32C, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 32, and do propose Amendments Nos. 32E to 32L as consequential amendments to the Bill"—
	32EClause 41, page 29, line 40, leave out paragraph (a)
	32FPage 30, line 19, leave out "41"
	32GPage 30, line 40, leave out "41"
	32HPage 31, line 25, leave out "41"
	32IPage 32, line 9, leave out "41"
	32JPage 33, line 6, leave out paragraph (a)
	32KPage 33, line 33, leave out "41"
	32LPage 33, line 41, leave out "41"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, before I speak further, I want to inform the House of recent events. Since the very sensible decision to adjourn last night to enable discussions to take place, we have, with the Government and our colleagues in opposition, used every moment late into the night and earlier this morning to reach agreement on the outstanding issues in a constructive atmosphere.
	An agreement was reached with the noble Baroness and her Home Office colleagues and I would like to pay tribute to them for working hard and at such a late hour. I am grateful to them. In the light of that agreement, the Government tabled a series of amendments to Clauses 41, 43 and 45 in your Lordships' House.
	By way of explanation, to our surprise we then learnt from the Public Bill Office that the amendments were suddenly withdrawn. I do not believe it would be beneficial or helpful to your Lordships' House if I were to pursue the matter any further or to speculate why. Nor would it assist an amicable settlement of the outstanding issues if I were to reveal any further details of the agreement that was reached, which we still hope even at this moment can be revised.
	In the light of the Government's withdrawal, we immediately tabled the Government's amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay. The Government had agreed that they would not insist on Clause 41 going into the Bill in this House. As a consequence of that agreement, we agreed on the amendments necessary to Clauses 43 and 45 on jury tampering. I believe that we have already explained in this House why we feel strongly that jury trials should not be optional and that jury tampering must be dealt with effectively. That is our position.
	On Clause 42, the Government are aware how strongly we feel that the principle of jury trials should not be eroded in serious fraud cases. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 32, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32C, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 32, and do propose Amendments Nos. 32E to 32L as consequential amendments to the Bill".—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I confirm that I was a party to the agreement to which the noble Lord has just referred. So far as I was concerned, there was no qualification at that time, as evidenced by the amendments set down by the Government; nor did we on these Benches receive any notice of the withdrawal of those amendments.
	We hope that this action on the part of the Government has not derailed the negotiations which were going on and which, we believed, with the co-operation of the Government Front Bench, were very close to an agreement being reached. However, we must say that the authority of the Government Front Bench has been undermined to a degree by what has happened.
	So far as concerns the amendments, the merits of the issues have been fully canvassed and I do not propose to go into them again. However, I believe it is important that your Lordships deliver a message that this House is not to be treated with contempt. Although we concede authority to the elected Chamber, we nevertheless have a constitutional duty not simply to act as a revising Chamber but to protect the ancient rights and modern civil liberties of the people of this country, which attacks on the jury system constantly seek to undermine.

Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may add a brief word on the defendant who wants to elect not to have a jury trial. There is a very relevant passage to this matter in Mill's On Liberty, where he discusses whether liberty should include the right to renounce liberty. He concludes that it should not because, while one may have the right to take that decision for oneself, one does not have the right to take it on behalf of one's posterity. John Stuart Mill could recognise the thin end of a wedge when he saw one. I hope that we can too.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I share with your Lordships that today is a very sad day for me because I have relied on your Lordships' integrity, honesty and reliability. Therefore, on each and every occasion that I have been charged on behalf of the Government to negotiate or deal with your Lordships, I hope that it has always been clear that I have been open, frank and honest.
	Therefore, I have found this an extraordinary morning because, as noble Lords will know, we had a confidential meeting in the hope that we would be able to obtain full and final settlement on all these issues. A full and final settlement was not possible but, in accordance with my usual custom, I shared fully and frankly with my colleagues opposite the route which I thought we might be able to take out of the difficulties in which we found ourselves. I made it plain that the Government would not give way on principle but that we were willing to look with care and precision at the way in which that principle would be expressed.
	So far as we were aware, the discussions did not conclude with total agreement, although it is right to say that we put forward proposals which we believed should have had that effect. I heard what the noble Lord said we tabled; I tell the House that we did not believe that the amendments were tabled because they were never distributed, although I accept that, in confidence, I shared possible proposals with noble Lords opposite.
	Subsequently, noble Lords opposite tabled the content of the outline agreement but added something which was not part of the agreement, and I found myself taken utterly by surprise. That is why I say that, for me, this is a very sad day indeed.
	I make it plain that this Government rejoiced that noble Lords opposite seemed to agree with us because we hoped that they had finally found the right way. I shall not repeat what we said in relation to Clause 41 because the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will know that Mill believed also in democracy, honesty and honour.
	As I have said on a number of occasions, Clause 41 gives the defendant a choice. Noble Lords opposite say that there should be a choice and that one should be able to choose whether to have a jury. Indeed, our system currently provides for just that in either-way cases, where a defendant chooses whether to be heard in front of magistrates or in front of a judge and jury. We thought that that was fair and proper and we were willing to respond to the recommendation of Lord Justice Auld. We still believe that that would be the better course.
	This House is supposed to be a revising Chamber. We have not shown that that is our function in relation to these provisions because this House has said only "No" without bringing forward change. That may be seen by some as usurping the functions of the other place.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it has been a difficult morning for everyone in this House. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, we had been hoping not to refer to any detail of discussions, in which the noble Baroness has been assiduous in her honesty and openness throughout. However, in outlining the Government's position, the noble Baroness has explained what the Government understood to take place this morning in such a way that she has made it impossible for me not to respond.
	Following discussions late last night, when we all tried to come to an agreement, at gone one o'clock, or thereabouts, we agreed to adjourn until this morning in order to consider the matters further. We did so. At that meeting, it was understood, and confirmed by the Government, that the Government would not press in this House the reinsertion of Clause 41 and that, on the other hand, we would embrace the Government's amendments on jury tampering. We had always sought a resolution on jury tampering under the leadership of my colleagues in another place. We welcomed that resolution to the problem.
	As the noble Baroness was absolutely right to point out, there were other matters on which agreement had not yet been reached—that of judge-alone trial for fraud and that of bad character. We noted that the discussions on those issues alone would continue for the rest of the day, and we said that we would all be available to do whatever it took to reach agreement. However, it was repeated by my honourable friend Mr Grieve that we would, to use a colloquial phrase, bank the agreements on Clauses 41, 43 and 45.
	In recognition of that agreement, I wrote instructions to the Public Bill Office stating that I would, in my name, object only to the reinsertion of Clauses 42 and 96. I did so on the understanding that the Government would not press ahead on Clause 41. A piece of paper with which we had so kindly and carefully been furnished by the Home Office, for which we thank that department, referred to the Motion being moved in another place by Mr Blunkett. I pointed out the name of Mr Blunkett but was assured that the Motion would, indeed, be dealt with in this House and not in another place.
	As a result of that confirmation I did not take the course open to me to lay a Motion to insist that Clause 41 should not form part of the Bill. No member of the Government informed me that any decision had changed on this matter. We telephoned the Home Office as soon as we were aware that something had gone wrong somewhere along the line. We have been given no explanation by Ministers. We had one brief conversation with an official that had nothing whatever to do with any of the events surrounding this matter. We continued to seek clarification. Explanation came there none. Today we hope to keep to the agreement that we reached this morning.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32D) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 163; Not-Contents, 115.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

33Leave out Clause 42 The Commons insist on their disagreement to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
	33H Page 28, line 34, after "where" insert "(a)"
	33I Page 28, line 35, at end insert "and
	(b) notice has been given under section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (notices in serious or complex fraud cases) in respect of that offence or those offences."
	33J Page 28, line 39, leave out "both of the following two conditions are" and insert "the following condition is"
	33K Page 28, line 39, leave out "must" and insert "may"
	33L Page 28, line 41, at end insert— "(3A) The judge must consult the Lord Chief Justice or a judge nominated by him before making such an order."
	33M Page 28, line 42, leave out "The first" and insert "That"
	33N Page 29, line 3, leave out subsection (5)
	33O Page 29, line 9, leave out "both of those two conditions are" and insert "that condition is"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 33 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33H to 33O. When the clause returned to another place yesterday, we tabled amendments to meet concerns about safeguards and the discretion of the judge. The clause now requires consultation with the Lord Chief Justice or a judge nominated by him.
	We believe that this will ensure consistency in the handling of the application and prevent non-jury trials for serious fraud cases, save where absolutely necessary. We have additionally increased the level of judicial discretion by substituting "may" for "must" in subsection (3).
	We have listened with great care to the concerns expressed on this provision, not least that there should be an appropriately tight sieve to make sure that only the most difficult and complex fraud cases would be dealt with. I hope your Lordships will find that, having put on the face of the proposed Bill the need for the consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, your Lordships will feel content that that is a sufficiently secure lock.
	I should say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the Government and I feel that this provision, along with many others, meets the needs of the case.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 33 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33H to 33O.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Hunt of Wirral: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 33, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33H to 33O to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 33".

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, as my noble friend explained earlier, Clause 42 has always been a matter of dispute between the Government and the Official Opposition. I have rehearsed the arguments very carefully indeed. The conviction rate is quoted as 92 per cent. Even with these changes, we are not sure what the clause intends to do, other than inappropriately to restrict trial by jury. The Government have a reputation for tampering with our constitutional structure. Our message is that restricting trial by jury in this way is a step too far.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 33, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33H to 33O to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 33".—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says on the issue. I am somewhat perplexed that he should say it as today an amendment accepting Clause 42 was tabled in the names of noble Lords opposite, which was subsequently withdrawn. We would argue that this is a perfectly proper amendment as put forward.
	The noble Lord asks how many cases there were. I think I made it clear when I spoke on the previous occasion that this is not a question of raising the conviction rates but of making sure that the full nature of the criminality, which is evident in these fraud cases, is brought to book. The current way we have to deal with these matters is often piecemeal. Sometimes we have to concentrate on the main players and we are not able to go for secondary matters because of the length and the complexity. That is a matter of great difficulty.
	Dealing with criminals who infiltrate our financial institutions in an improper way should be a key concern. We should use tools similar to those adopted in other common law jurisdictions to deal with this real scourge. I ask noble Lords to consider whether in all the circumstances it is right to insist on its removal.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, just to explain, when the Government tabled the amendments to Clauses 41, 43 and 45 and then withdrew them, after having made them available to the Public Bill Office, my noble friend asked for those amendments to be tabled in our name to fulfil the agreement that had been reached. There was a misunderstanding, and the government amendments to Clause 42 were tabled in the name of my noble friend. We immediately pointed out the error; that is why the list was reprinted. I hope that that is sufficient explanation.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33P) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 160; Not-Contents, 116.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

34Leave out Clause 43
	The Commons insist on their disagreement to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
	34D Page 29, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert "both of the following two conditions are fulfilled"
	34E Page 29, line 26, after second "is" insert "evidence of a"
	34F Page 29, line 28, leave out subsection (5)
	34G Page 29, line 33, leave out "third" and insert "second"
	34H Page 29, line 37, at end insert— "(7) The following are examples of cases where there may be evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place—
	(a) a case where the trial is a retrial and the jury in the previous trial was discharged because jury tampering had taken place,
	(b) a case where jury tampering has taken place in previous criminal proceedings involving the defendant or any of the defendants,
	(c) a case where there has been intimidation, or attempted intimidation, of any person who is likely to be a witness in the trial."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34D to 34H to the words so restored to the Bill.
	The provisions are well known to your Lordships—I have previously fully explained the issues that are between us. They relate to the jury tampering provisions. We believe that that is a mischief that needs to be rectified. I beg to move.
	Moved, that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34D to 34H to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Hunt of Wirral: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34D to 34H to the words so restored to the Bill, at end insert "and do propose the following further amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
	34JClause 43, page 29, line 35, leave out "sufficiently high" and insert "so substantial as"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: We are all agreed that jury tampering is an evil that must be dealt with effectively. It was therefore with considerable pleasure that I looked at the amendments that the Minister put before us this morning, with which we agreed. I have now tabled the Minister's amendments. If she is unable to accept them, I would love to hear why she has changed her mind.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34D to 34H to the words so restored to the Bill, at end insert "and do propose Amendment No. 34J to the words so restored to the Bill".—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I were delighted that the noble Lords opposite had accepted that we had done everything proper in these amendments to meet their concerns. However, we had hoped and desired that they would have done the same with all our suggestions.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, the original Question was that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34D to 34H, since when the present Amendment No. 34I has been moved, at end insert "and do propose Amendment No. 34J to the words so restored to the Bill". As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
	Division called.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I shall repeat the Question: as many as are of that opinion shall say "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content".

Noble Lords: Content.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: The Contents have it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

36 Clause 45, Leave out Clause 45 The Commons insist on their disagreement to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
	36D Clause 45, page 31, line 5, leave out "(or partly because)"
	36E Clause 45, page 31, line 12, leave out "must" and insert "may"
	36F Clause 45, page 31, line 12, after second "jury" insert "if, but only if, he is satisfied—
	(a) that jury tampering has taken place, and
	(b) that to continue the trial without a jury would be fair to the defendant or defendants"
	36G Clause 45, page 31, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert "both of the conditions set out in section 43 are likely to be fulfilled"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 36 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36D to 36G. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34. I wish to make it plain that I find the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will move, which were originally mine, as delightful as I did when they were drafted.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 36 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36D to 36G.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I wish to respond by moving the amendments that are consequential on those that the Government have just conceded. With great pleasure, we welcome these amendments; they were originally tabled by the Government, and are now in the name of my honourable friend.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS

114Before Clause 90, insert the following new Clause— "Evidence of bad character
	(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) ("the 1984 Act") is amended as follows.
	(2) After Section 82 of the 1984 Act (Part VIII—interpretation) insert—
	"PART VIII A
	EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER
	82A Bad character
	References in this Part to evidence of a person's bad character are references to evidence which shows that—
	(a) he has committed an offence, or
	(b) he has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a way that, in the opinion of the court, would be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person. 82B Requirement of leave
	(1) In criminal proceedings, evidence of a person's bad character is admissible only with leave of the court, unless the evidence—
	(a) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or
	(b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence. (2) This section does not apply in relation to an item of evidence if—
	(a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible, or
	(b) in the case of evidence of the defendant's bad character, the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it. 82C Non-defendant's bad character
	In the case of evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant, the court is not to give leave under section 82B unless the evidence falls within section 82D or 82E. 82D Evidence with explanatory value
	Evidence falls within this section if—
	(a) without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and
	(b) its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial. 82E Evidence going to a matter in issue
	(1) Evidence falls within this section if it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—
	(a) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and
	(b) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. (2) In assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of this section, the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—
	(a) the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence relates;
	(b) when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;
	(c) where—
	(i) the evidence is evidence of a person's misconduct, and
	(ii) it is suggested that the evidence has probative value by reason of similarity between that misconduct and other alleged misconduct, the nature and extent of the similarities and the dissimilarities between each of the alleged instances of misconduct;
	(d) where—
	(i) the evidence is evidence of a person's misconduct,
	(ii) it is suggested that that person is also responsible for the misconduct charged, and
	(iii) the identity of the person responsible for the misconduct charged is disputed, the extent to which the evidence shows or tends to show that the same person was responsible each time.
	(3) In subsection (2)(d) "misconduct charged" means the misconduct constituting the offence with which the defendant is charged.
	82F Defendant's bad character
	In the case of evidence of the defendant's bad character, the court is not to give leave under section 82B, unless the evidence falls within section 82G, 82H, 82I, 82J or 82K. 82G Evidence with explanatory value
	(1) Evidence falls within this section if the following three conditions are met.
	(2) The first condition is that, without the evidence, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case.
	(3) The second condition is that the value of the evidence for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.
	(4) The third condition is that the court is satisfied—
	(a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or
	(b) that the value of the evidence for understanding the case as a whole is such that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible. 82H Evidence going to a matter in issue
	(1) Evidence falls within this section if the following two conditions are met.
	(2) The first condition is that the evidence has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—
	(a) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and
	(b) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. (3) The second condition is that the court is satisfied—
	(a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or
	(b) that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible in view of—
	(i) how much probative value it has in relation to the matter in issue,
	(ii) what other evidence has been, or can be, given on that matter, and
	(iii) how important that matter is in the context of the case as a whole. (4) In determining whether the two conditions are met, the court must have regard to the factors listed in section 5(2) (and to any others it considers relevant).
	(5) For the purposes of this section, whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful is not to be regarded as a matter in issue in the proceedings.
	(6) Only prosecution evidence can fall within this section.
	82I Evidence going to credibility
	(1) This section applies only where—
	(a) the defendant makes an attack on a person's character, and
	(b) the effect of the attack is to suggest, or to support a suggestion, that the person has a propensity to be untruthful. (2) For the purposes of this section, a defendant makes an attack on a person's character where—
	(a) he adduces evidence of the person's bad character, other than—
	(i) evidence that has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or
	(ii) evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence,
	(b) he asks questions in cross-examination that are intended to elicit evidence of the kind referred to in paragraph (a), or
	(c) evidence is given of an assertion made about the person by the defendant—
	(i) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is charged, or
	(ii) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it, and the assertion is such that, if it were made in evidence, the evidence containing the assertion would be evidence of the kind referred to in paragraph (a).
	(3) Evidence falls within this section if the following three conditions are met.
	(4) The first condition is that the evidence has substantial probative value in showing that the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful.
	(5) The second condition is that, without the evidence, the court or jury would get an inaccurate impression of the defendant's propensity to be untruthful in comparison with that of the other person.
	(6) The third condition is that the court is satisfied—
	(a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or
	(b) that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible in view of—
	(i) how much probative value it has in showing that the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful,
	(ii) what other evidence has been, or can be, given on that matter, and
	(iii) how important it is, in the context of the case as a whole, to prevent the impression mentioned in subsection (5). (7) In determining whether the three conditions are met the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—
	(a) the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the defendant's attack relates and of those to which the evidence in question (the responding evidence) relates;
	(b) when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;
	(c) how important is the defendant's propensity to be untruthful, and that of the other person, in the context of the prosecution case and of the defence case;
	(d) in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(b), whether or not the evidence intended to be elicited is actually given;
	(e) how inaccurate the impression mentioned in subsection (5) would be;
	(f) where the responding evidence is of a spent conviction, the fact that the conviction is spent;
	(g) any risk that admitting the responding evidence would be confusing or misleading, or would unduly prolong the proceedings. (8) Only prosecution evidence can fall within this section.
	82J Evidence to correct false impression
	(1) This section applies only where the defendant is responsible for the making of an express or implied assertion which is apt to give the court or jury a false or misleading impression about the defendant.
	(2) Evidence falls within this section if the following two conditions are met.
	(3) The first condition is that the evidence has substantial probative value in correcting the false or misleading impression.
	(4) The second condition is that the court is satisfied—
	(a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or
	(b) that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible in view of—
	(i) how much probative value it has in correcting the false or misleading impression,
	(ii) what other evidence has been, or can be, given to correct that impression, and
	(iii) how important it is, in the context of the case as a whole, for that impression to be corrected. (5) For the purposes of this section, a defendant is responsible for the making of an assertion if—
	(a) the assertion is made by the defendant in the proceedings (whether or not in evidence given by him),
	(b) the assertion was made by the defendant—
	(i) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is charged, or
	(ii) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it, and evidence of the assertion is given in the proceedings,
	(c) the assertion is made by a witness called by the defendant,
	(d) the assertion is made by any witness in cross-examination in response to a question asked by the defendant and intended, in the opinion of the court, to elicit it, or
	(e) the assertion was made by any person out of court, and the defendant adduces evidence of it in the proceedings. (6) Where it appears to the court that a defendant, by means of his conduct (other than the giving of evidence) in the proceedings, is seeking to give the court or jury an impression about himself that is false or misleading, the court may if it appears just to do so treat the defendant as being responsible for the making of an assertion which is apt to give that impression.
	(7) In subsection (6) "conduct" includes appearance or dress.
	(8) In determining whether the two conditions are met, the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—
	(a) the nature of the impression given by the assertion referred to in subsection (1), and how false or misleading that impression is;
	(b) by whom and in what circumstances the assertion is or was made;
	(c) the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence in question (the correcting evidence) relates;
	(d) when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;
	(e) where the correcting evidence is of a spent conviction, the fact that the conviction is spent; (f) any risk that admitting the correcting evidence would be confusing or misleading, or would unduly prolong the proceedings.
	(9) Where in proceedings before a magistrates' court—
	(a) the defendant is responsible for the making of an assertion which is apt to give the court a certain impression about the defendant,
	(b) the prosecution allege that the impression is false or misleading, and
	(c) in reliance on this section the prosecution propose to apply for leave under section 82B to adduce or elicit evidence to correct the impression, the court must first rule (without being given any details about the evidence) whether, however false or misleading the impression may be, it is unimportant in the context of the case as a whole for it to be corrected; and if the court makes a ruling to that effect, no evidence can fall within this section in relation to the assertion in question.
	(10) Only prosecution evidence can fall within this section.
	82K Evidence going to an issue between co-defendants
	(1) Evidence falls within this section if it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—
	(a) is a matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant, and
	(b) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. (2) For the purposes of this section, evidence is not to be treated as having the probative value mentioned in subsection (1) by virtue of its relevance to the question whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful unless the nature or conduct of his defence is such as to undermine the co-defendant's defence.
	(3) In assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of this section, the court must have regard to the factors listed in section 82B(2) (and to any others it considers relevant).
	(4) Only evidence—
	(a) which is to be (or has been) adduced by the co-defendant, or
	(b) which a witness is to be invited to give (or has given) in cross-examination by the co-defendant,
	can fall within this section. 82L Trying more than one offence together
	(1) In section 5 of the Indictments Act 1915 (c. 90) (orders for separate trial etc) insert after subsection (2)—
	"(2A) Where—
	(a) a person is charged with more than one offence in the same indictment,
	(b) the prosecution propose to adduce evidence which is admissible in relation to one of the offences but which, in relation to another, is evidence of the person's bad character and is inadmissible, and
	(c) the person applies before trial for an order that the offences mentioned in paragraph (b) above be tried separately, the court shall grant the application unless satisfied that trying the offences together would not prevent the defendant having a fair trial.
	(2B) The reference in subsection (2A) above to evidence of the person's bad character shall be read in accordance with section 82A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)."
	(2) In subsection (3) of that section, after "before trial" insert "(in a case not falling within subsection (2A) above)".
	(3) Where in proceedings before a magistrates' court—
	(a) it is proposed that the defendant be tried for two or more offences together,
	(b) the prosecution propose to adduce evidence which is admissible in relation to one of the offences but which, in relation to another, is evidence of the person's bad character and is inadmissible, and
	(c) the defendant objects before trial to the offences mentioned in paragraph (b) being tried together, the court may order those offences to be tried together only if satisfied that doing so would not prevent the defendant having a fair trial.
	82M Stopping the case where evidence contaminated
	(1) If on a defendant's trial on indictment for an offence—
	(a) evidence of his bad character has been admitted with leave under section 82B, and
	(b) the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution that—
	(i) the evidence is contaminated, and
	(ii) the contamination is such that, considering the importance of the evidence to the case against the defendant, his conviction of the offence would be unsafe, the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a retrial, discharge the jury.
	(2) Where—
	(a) a jury is directed under subsection (1) to acquit a defendant of an offence, and
	(b) the circumstances are such that, apart from this subsection, the defendant could if acquitted of that offence be found guilty of another offence, the defendant may not be found guilty of that other offence if the court is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) in respect of it.
	(3) If—
	(a) a jury is required to determine under section 4A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84) whether a person charged on an indictment with an offence did the act or made the omission charged,
	(b) evidence of the person's bad character has been admitted with leave under section 82B, and
	(c) the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution that—
	(i) the evidence is contaminated, and
	(ii) the contamination is such that, considering the importance of the evidence to the case against the person, a finding that he did the act or made the omission would be unsafe, the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a rehearing, discharge the jury.
	(4) This section does not prejudice any other power a court may have to direct a jury to acquit a person of an offence or to discharge a jury.
	(5) For the purposes of this section, a person's evidence is contaminated where—
	(a) as a result of an agreement or understanding between the person and one or more others, or
	(b) as a result of the person being aware of anything alleged by one or more others who are, or could be, witnesses in the proceedings, the evidence is false or misleading in any respect, or is different from what it would otherwise have been.
	82N Assumption of truth in assessment of probative value
	(1) Subject to subsection (2), a reference in this Act to the probative value of evidence is a reference to its probative value on the assumption that it is true.
	(2) In assessing the probative value of an item of evidence for any purpose of this Act, a court need not assume that the evidence is true if it appears, on the basis of any material before the court (including any evidence it decides to hear on the matter), that no court or jury could reasonably find it to be true.
	82O Court's duty to give reasons for rulings
	(1) Where the court makes a relevant ruling—
	(a) it must state in open court (but in the absence of the jury, if there is one) its reasons for the ruling;
	(b) if it is a magistrates' court, it must cause the ruling and the reasons for it to be entered in the register of the court's proceedings. (2) In this section "relevant ruling" means—
	(a) a ruling on whether an item of evidence is admissible only with leave under section 82B;
	(b) a decision whether to give leave under that section;
	(c) a ruling under section 82M. 82P Rules of court
	(1) Rules of court may make such provision as appears to the appropriate authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Act; and the appropriate authority is the authority entitled to make the rules.
	(2) The rules may require a party who—
	(a) proposes to adduce evidence of a defendant's bad character that is admissible only with leave under section 82B, or
	(b) proposes to cross-examine a witness with a view to eliciting such evidence, to serve on the defendant such notice, and such particulars of or relating to the evidence, as may be prescribed.
	(3) The rules may provide that the court or the defendant may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, dispense with a requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (2).
	(4) If a party fails to comply with a requirement that has been imposed in relation to an item of evidence by virtue of subsection (2) (and not dispensed with by virtue of subsection (3)) the court may take the failure into account—
	(a) in deciding whether to grant leave under section 82B; and
	(b) where leave is given, in considering the exercise of its powers with respect to costs. (5) The rules may—
	(a) limit the application of any provision of the rules to prescribed circumstances;
	(b) subject any provision of the rules to prescribed exceptions; and
	(c) make different provision for different cases or circumstances. (6) Nothing in this section prejudices the generality of any enactment conferring power to make rules of court; and no particular provision of this section prejudices any general provision of it.
	(7) In this section—
	"prescribed" means prescribed by rules of court;
	"rules of court" means—
	(a) Crown Court Rules;
	(b) Criminal Appeal Rules; and
	(c) rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43). 82Q Interpretation
	(1) In this Chapter—
	"bad character" is to be read in accordance with section 82A;
	"criminal proceedings" means criminal proceedings in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply;
	"defendant" in relation to criminal proceedings, means a person charged with an offence in those proceedings; and "co-defendant", in relation to a defendant, means a person charged with an offence in the same proceedings;
	"misconduct" means—
	(a) the commission of an offence, or
	(b) behaviour of a kind that, in the opinion of the court, might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person; "prejudice", in relation to an item of evidence and a defendant, is to be read in accordance with subsection (2);
	"probative value" is to be read in accordance with section 82N;
	"prosecution evidence" means evidence which is to be (or has been) adduced by the prosecution, or which a witness is to be invited to give (or has given) in cross-examination by the prosecution.
	(2) For the purposes of this Act, evidence carries a risk of prejudice to a defendant where—
	(a) there is a risk that the court or jury would attach undue weight to the evidence, or
	(b) the nature of the matters with which the evidence deals is such as to give rise to a risk that the court or jury would find the defendant guilty without being satisfied that he was. (3) Where a defendant is charged with two or more offences in the same criminal proceedings, this Act has effect as if each offence were charged in separate proceedings; and references to the offence with which the defendant is charged are to be read accordingly.
	82R Minor and consequential amendments
	(1) In section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c. 18) (witness's conviction for offence may be proved if not admitted)—
	(a) for "A witness may be" substitute "If, upon a witness being lawfully";
	(b) omit "and upon being so questioned, if". (2) In section 1(2) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 (c. 36) (restriction of privilege against self-incrimination where defendant gives evidence) at the beginning insert "Subject to section 6 of the Criminal Evidence Act 2001 (inadmissibility of evidence of defendant's bad character)".
	(3) In section 16(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (c. 37) (offences committed by person under 14 disregarded for purposes of evidence relating to previous convictions) for the words from "notwithstanding" to the end substitute "even though the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16) would not prevent the question from being asked".
	82S Repeals
	(1) The common law rules governing the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings are abolished.
	(2) The rules referred to in subsection (1) include any rule under which, as an exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence, evidence of a person's reputation is admissible for the purpose of proving his character, but only so far as the rule relates to evidence of bad character.
	(3) The following cease to have effect—
	(a) section 1(3) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 (c. 36) (which makes provision as to the questions that a defendant may be asked about his bad character in cross-examination);
	(b) section 27(3) of the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) (admission of evidence of previous convictions for theft etc to prove that defendant knew goods to be stolen)."" The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	114A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character. The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	114B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	115Leave out Clause 90 The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
	115A Page 60, line 37, leave out from beginning to "evidence" in line 2 on page 61 and insert— "References in this Chapter to evidence of a person's "bad character" are to evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his part, other than"
	The Lords disagree to Commons Amendment No. 115A, and insist on their Amendment No. 115 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	115B Clause 90, Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	116Leave out Clause 91 The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	116A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character. Clause 91, The Lords insist on their Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason—
	116B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	117Leave out Clause 92 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following Reason—
	117A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character. The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	117B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	118Leave out Clause 93 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	118A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character. The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	118B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	119Leave out Clause 94 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	119A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character. The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	119B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	121Leave out Clause 96 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	121A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character. The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	121B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	122Leave out Clause 97 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	122A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character. Clause 97, The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	122B Clause 97, Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	123 Clause 98, Leave out Clause 98 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	123A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character. The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	123B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	124Leave out Clause 99 The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
	124A Page 64, line 40, leave out from "a" to end of line 41 and insert "reprehensible way" The Lords disagree to Commons Amendment No. 124A, and insist on their Amendment No. 124 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	124B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	125Leave out Clause 100 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	125A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character. Clause 100, The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	125B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	126Leave out Clause 101 The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
	126A Page 65, line 47, at end insert— "(2) In proceedings for an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant when aged 21 or over, evidence of his conviction for an offence when under the age of 14 is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the interests of justice so require.
	(3) Subsection (2) applies in addition to section 93."
	The Lords disagree to Commons Amendment No. 126A, and insist on their Amendment No. 126 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	126B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	127Leave out Clause 102 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	127A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character. The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	127B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	128Leave out Clause 103 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	128A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character. Clause 103, The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	128B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	129Leave out Clause 104 The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
	129A Page 66, line 28, leave out "require a defendant" and insert ", and, where the party in question is the prosecution, must, contain provision requiring a party"
	129B Page 66, line 29, leave out "co-defendant's bad character under section 93(1)(f)" and insert "defendant's bad character"
	129C Page 66, line 33, leave out "co-defendant" and insert "defendant"
	129D Page 66, line 35, leave out "co-defendant" and insert "defendant"
	129E Page 66, line 39, leave out "defendant" and insert "party" The Lords disagree to Commons Amendments Nos. 129A to 129E, and insist on their Amendment No. 129 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	129F Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	130Leave out Clause 105 The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
	130A Page 67, line 26, leave out from "means" to end of line 29 and insert "the commission of an offence or other reprehensible behaviour"
	130B Page 67, line 42, after "Chapter" insert "(except section 93(3)"
	130C Clause 105, page 67, line 45, at end insert—
	"(a) under the rule in section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c. 18) against a party impeaching the credit of his own witness by general evidence of bad character,"
	130D Page 67, line 47, after "(c. 23)" insert "(restriction on evidence or questions about complainant's sexual history)" The Lords disagree to Commons Amendments Nos. 130A to 130D, and insist on their Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	130E Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
	131Leave out Clause 106 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	131A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character. The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	131B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

COMMONS RESPONSE TO LORDS AMENDMENTS 114 TO 119 AND 121 TO 131

Clause 106, The Commons insist on their disagreement to Amendments Nos. 114 to 119 and 121 to 131 but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
	131C Page 60, line 37, leave out from beginning to "evidence" in line 2 on page 61 and insert— "References in this Chapter to evidence of a person's "bad character" are to evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his part, other than"
	131D Page 62, leave out lines 16 to 18
	131E Page 62, line 26, leave out "(d),"
	131F Page 63, line 19, at end insert:— "(1A) Where subsection (1)(a) applies, a defendant's propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged may (without prejudice to any other way of doing so) be established by evidence that he has been convicted of—
	(a) an offence of the same description as the one with which he is charged, or
	(b) an offence of the same category as the one with which he is charged. (1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply in the case of a particular defendant if the court is satisfied, by reason of the length of time since the conviction or for any other reason, that it would be unjust for it to apply in his case.
	(1C) For the purposes of subsection (1A)—
	(a) two offences are of the same description as each other if the statement of the offence in a written charge or indictment would, in each case, be in the same terms;
	(b) two offences are of the same category as each other if they belong to the same category of offences prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State. (1D) A category prescribed by an order under subsection (1C)(b) must consist of offences of the same type."
	131G Page 64, line 40, leave out from "a" to end of line 41 and insert "reprehensible way"
	131H Page 65, line 47, at end insert:— "(2) In proceedings for an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant when aged 21 or over, evidence of his conviction for an offence when under the age of 14 is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the interests of justice so require.
	(3) Subsection (2) applies in addition to section 93."
	131I Page 66, line 28, leave out "require a defendant" and insert ", and, where the party in question is the prosecution, must, contain provision requiring a party"
	131J Page 66, line 29, leave out "co-defendant's bad character under section 93(1)(f)" and insert "defendant's bad character"
	131K Page 66, line 33, leave out "co-defendant" and insert "defendant"
	131L Page 66, line 35, leave out "co-defendant" and insert "defendant"
	131M Page 66, line 39, leave out "defendant" and insert "party"
	131N Page 67, line 26, leave out from "means" to end of line 29 and insert "the commission of an offence or other reprehensible behaviour"
	131O Page 67, line 42, after "Chapter" insert "(except section 93(3))"
	131P Page 67, line 45, at end insert—
	"(a) under the rule in section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c. 18) against a party impeaching the credit of his own witness by general evidence of bad character,"
	131Q Page 67, line 47, after "(c. 23)" insert "(restriction on evidence or questions about complainant's sexual history)" Clause 106, The Commons have made the following consequential Amendments to the Bill—
	131R Page 171, line 30, leave out "95" and insert "96"
	131S Page 217, line 8, leave out "95" and insert "96"
	131T Page 217, line 9, leave out "(1)" and insert "(1C)"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 114 to 119 and 121 to 131 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 131C to 131T.
	Noble Lords will recall that, when the matter was last before your Lordships' House, the Law Commission's draft on the amendments supplanted the previous ones, since when we have proposed certain amendments to that clause. This is very familiar territory. In this part of the Bill, we seek to reform the rules dealing with evidence of bad character and to set them on a consolidated and coherent basis for the future. Essentially, amendments accepted in this House, and on which this House has insisted, would replace the Government's proposal with the scheme drafted by the Law Commission.
	We have had extensive debate on the issues involved. I hope that I have explained the extent to which the Government have drawn on the Law Commission's work. Nevertheless, it has proved extremely difficult to reach an agreement on exactly what form the statutory scheme should take. The Government propose an inclusionary rule, under which relevant evidence would be admissible subject to inclusion in the interests of justice.
	Such rebalancing is necessary to ensure that the courts have the evidence and material that they need to determine the issues in the cases. However, there are clear safeguards to ensure that the interests of defendants are protected and trials remain fair. I outlined those at length during the previous debate on them.
	The Government have also gone to great lengths to meet concerns about how the proposals would operate. They are reflected in the amendments proposed by the other place. They include a tighter definition of evidence of bad character, a clear requirement for the prosecution to give notice of their intention to rely on a defendant's record and making clear that juvenile convictions are to be admitted in adult proceedings unless the interests of justice require them to be admitted.
	We have also sought to address concerns about the operation of Clause 93(1)(d)—the presumption that convictions for the same, or a similar, offence should be admissible. We have done so by bringing the presumption under the category of evidence relevant to the issues in the case. In doing so, we have created a closer link between that evidence and the question of propensity.
	The amendments that we have tabled further clarify our intent that relevant evidence should go before the court but there is perfectly proper opportunity if that evidence is considered to have more prejudicial than probative value for it to be excluded on the discretion in exercise by the judge.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 114 to 119 and 121 to 131 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 131C to 131T.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Kingsland: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 114 to 119 and 121 to 131 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 131C to 131T, leave out from "119" to end and insert ", 122 to 125 and 127 to 131, do agree with Commons amendments 131C to 131G and 131I to 131T, but do insist on its Amendments Nos. 121 and 126 and do disagree with Commons Amendment No. 131H".

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, for technical reasons, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and our amendment have been grouped. I shall speak, telegraphically, to Amendment No. 121, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will speak to Amendment No. 126. Also for technical reasons, there will be a single vote. Had there been separate votes, we would have abstained from voting on the noble Baroness's amendment.
	Amendment No. 121, which would delete Clause 96, represents a substantial concession to the Government. By ceding the Law Commission's draft Bill, we, with deep reluctance, abandoned our commitment to an exclusionary presumption. There remained therefore only the issue of propensity evidence in Clause 96. In a spirit of co-operation, we hoped, and continue to hope, that a solution will be found in another place.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 114 to 119 and 121 to 131 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 131C to 131T, leave out from "119" to end and insert ", 122 to 125 and 127 to 131, do agree with Commons Amendments Nos. 131C to 131G and 131I to 131T, but do insist on its Amendments Nos. 121 and 126 and do disagree with Commons Amendment No. 131H.—(Lord Kingsland.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, in rising to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 131H. I am returning to this matter because I feel so strongly that this is such a thoroughly bad Bill in respect of justice for children, for four reasons. First, Amendment No. 131H waters down a crucial immunity which children deserve because of their special status—that of having convictions used against a defendant in court which were committed when, in all other civilised countries, the child would have been below the age of criminal responsibility. Secondly, the Bill racks up sentences for children and enshrines minimum sentences in statute. For example, a 10 year-old can be given 12 years for murder. Thirdly, it brings children into the criminal justice system inappropriately in situations that would have been better dealt with in other ways through other agencies—in the drug testing provisions, for example. Finally and most fundamentally, the Bill treats children as miniature adults instead of what is needed in order to ensure justice for children, which is to enshrine the welfare of the child in the criminal justice system. For those four and many other reasons I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have listened to the telegraphic comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I understand that he proposes to accept a majority of the Government's proposals, but that this House insists on its disagreement to two provisions. The first makes it clear that evidence of propensity can be given in a case and such evidence is already admissible in certain circumstances. However, this area of the law is complex, as I hope the noble Lord accepts. We have therefore given this issue a lot of consideration and we consider it desirable to make it clear in the Bill.
	The second relates to lifting the absolute prohibition on admitting juvenile convictions in adult proceedings, which is a matter to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has spoken. I have taken into account, as on every occasion, the concerns that the noble Baroness rightly has that things must be done in the best interests of children. The noble Baroness will know that we on the Government Benches very much share her concern and the desire to ensure that there is proper differentiation and recognition for the vulnerability of children and the differentiation that comes with age. We have already offered substantial movement on that issue by introducing an amendment that proposes that convictions should be admitted only when the interests of justice require that to happen. We believe that that strikes the right balance. In the interests of justice, there are some cases involving children in which such matters should be heard.
	Noble Lords will know that we have shown considerable flexibility in pursuing our proposals. We believe that they constitute a sensible and coherent whole. I therefore urge this House to resist the noble Lord's Motion and to allow the amendments that have been properly passed by the other place to stand.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, although propensity evidence has always been admissible in circumstances in which the defendant attacks the prosecution's good character, it has never been admissible as an issue in the case. That is the source of the fundamental difference between the Government and ourselves as the noble Baroness knows well. In those circumstances, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 131U) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 166; Not-Contents, 115.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill

A message was brought from the Commons, That they insist on their disagreement with your Lordships in an amendment to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill on which the Lords insisted but have made a consequential amendment to the Bill to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships. They insist on their disagreement with your Lordships in another amendment on which your Lordships have insisted but have made amendments to the words so restored to the Bill to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons message be considered forthwith.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS INSISTENCE ON DISAGREEMENT TO AMENDMENTS ON WHICH THE LORDS HAVE INSISTED, WITH A CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT AND AMENDMENTS TO THE WORDS TO BE RESTORED TO THE BILL

[The page and line refer to the HL Bill 94 as first printed for the Lords.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT

1C Clause 1, page 105, line 33, leave out "Parts 1" and insert "Part 1 (except section 1 and Schedule 1) and Parts 2"

Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1C.
	Noble Lords will notice that the amendment to Clause 1 deals with commencement and enables the Bill to continue to be discussed. The amendment to Schedule 1 was required, but it increases the minimum number of staff representatives on the board of governors to three. That was something that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches sought in Committee and on Report. The amendment effectively provides for the amendment that they tabled on Report.
	There is little point in my repeating the arguments in favour of NHS foundation trusts at this stage of the proceedings. I am afraid that those on the Benches opposite decline to listen to the arguments. Instead, I remind the House that we have spent nine days considering the Bill since Second Reading. During that time, the Government have moved or accepted many, many amendments. Over 200 amendments have been approved here and in the other place, 90 of which relate to NHS foundation trusts. That demonstrates how much the Government have listened and responded to the concerns expressed in all parts of the House.
	On top of that, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that, after the 2004 wave of foundation trusts comes into existence—around the autumn of 2004—he is happy to review that experience. That is something that those on the Benches opposite have asked for all along; but now, it seems, it is brushed aside as inconsequential. That review could cover all aspects of the governance arrangements and the effect of NHS foundation trusts on local health economies. The review would involve the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, and the report would be available to Parliament and could be debated in Parliament. The Secretary of State has even agreed to defer approving any more NHS foundation trusts after the 2004 wave until the review process is complete.
	Yet, after all the listening and positive responses, with the House of Lords doing its rightful job of scrutiny and revision, all we got from the Benches opposite yesterday were lengthy and synthetic speeches about the alleged inadequacies of the Bill. The reality is that they have simply refused to use the nine days in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading to move amendments that would modify the Bill as they think necessary.
	Perhaps I may give one example. On Third Reading, the Benches opposite successfully moved three relatively minor amendments that were comprehensively defeated in the other place with majorities of well over 100. The truth is that this House has had plenty of opportunity to revise the Bill, but all that the Benches opposite want is to pursue wrecking amendments and to divide the will of the elected Chamber.
	No one is fooled by their behaviour. The two opposition Benches in this House are marching to the drumbeat of their colleagues in another place. I feel rather sorry for the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who I suspect are more discomforted than they let on about the position in which they are placed. I am sure that noble Lords from other parts of the House, who may have thought that it was a good idea to vote with them yesterday, may need to reflect a little on what is going on.
	The Bill has gone back to the other place twice, where it has been thought through twice. The Bill has been returned twice, with Clause 1 and Schedule 1 restored. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in the final debate early this morning in the other place, the House of Commons has had the debate on Part 1 of the Bill on five separate occasions. I understated it yesterday, as is my normal approach in these matters. On five separate occasions, the House of Commons has debated Part 1 and on each occasion has approved it.
	We know what is the will of the elected Chamber, which, incidentally, returned the Bill this time with the disagreement to the Lords amendment on Clause 1 carried by a majority of 41. I can remember a previous administration when those on the Benches opposite were in power; they would have cut off their right arms for that kind of majority.
	The other place has thought about National Health Service foundation trusts repeatedly. It has decided that they should proceed. As I made clear yesterday, the Government will not give in. They will keep sending the Bill back with Clause 1 and Schedule 1 restored. They will not bow to an unelected Chamber thwarting the reform of the NHS. All that those on the Benches opposite are doing is delaying prorogation, jeopardising the Bill, and usurping the role of the other place. I beg to move that this House do not disagree with the Commons amendment.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1C.—(Lord Warner.)

Earl Howe: had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1C, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its amendment 1".

Earl Howe: My Lords, the events of yesterday evening and the results of the two Divisions in this House will have weighed heavily with many of your Lordships during the past few hours, as they have with me. I hope that, on reflection, those on the Government Benches will consider that the adjournment of the House last night has proved helpful in enabling all parties to consider the way forward.
	It cannot have escaped the notice of the Government that the majority achieved in this House last night on both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat amendments was greater than the corresponding majority on Report. That very remarkable fact demonstrates to the Minister how the majority of your Lordships viewed the constitutional arguments advanced by Benches opposite in the preceding debate.
	There is a real and widespread hostility against Part 1, which Ministers will not or cannot acknowledge. The warnings issued by the Minister yesterday that the Bill as a whole was at risk unless this House bowed to the will of the Commons will not have been lost on any of your Lordships. But that was a threat which was perhaps all of a piece with the arm-twisting tactics we have witnessed during the past few days.
	It was also disingenuous. The Government know well that it would be possible to agree to the removal of Part 1 of the Bill, allowing Parts 2 to 6 to proceed without further ado. That offer was made to the Government yesterday; the offer was rejected. On one level, the rejection of the offer may not be surprising given the Government's unreasonably obdurate frame of mind. On another level, it has caused me total astonishment.
	Yesterday evening an e-mail was sent by Julia Hickling, head of the NHS Foundation Trust Implementation Branch, to all chairs and chief executives of the first wave applicant foundation trusts. It began:
	"I attach a copy of the Secretary of State's statement to Parliament following the decision not to pass the NHS foundation trust part of the Health and Social Care Bill. The Secretary of State will be writing to you personally tomorrow. As you will see, the statement refers to the Government's intention to use existing powers to give extra freedoms to applicant Trusts who meet the criteria for approval as NHSFTs. We plan to use the Chief Executives and Chairs meeting on Tuesday to discuss how we can move forward on this basis".
	The message was later retracted, but it had already gone out.
	It tells us that, in very large measure, Part 1 is not needed at all in order for the Government to proceed with their plans to confer additional freedoms on the health service. It also tells us something more about the cocksure mentality of Ministers; they feel perfectly comfortable in proceeding with de facto foundation status regardless of Parliament having rejected Part 1 under the assumption used in the e-mail.
	So, to the sins of obduracy and self-righteousness by Ministers, can be added cynicism and disingenuousness as well. Perhaps I may say that I do not think that the Government have emerged with any credit from the events of the past 24 hours.
	However, of necessity, we must return to what I suggest is the issue today; that is, the constitutional position. Late last night, or early this morning, the other place reinstated Clause 1 and Schedule 1 with a considerably increased majority. I believe that this House was right to send an emphatic message to the Government yesterday in rejecting those parts of the Bill. However, like it or not—I do not—this House has a duty to recognise the validity and strength of the decision of the other place. On a matter of this kind, which is essentially an issue of policy rather than constitutional principle, it is not for your Lordships to continue to resist the will of the elected House any further. I therefore do not propose to move my amendment.

[Amendment not moved.]

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we have had a very interesting few days. I notice that on this occasion the Minister chose to adopt a tone of injured innocence, which many of us found quite diverting. I am not sure that he landed many punches during his speech, but it appears that the Government are now propounding a new constitutional doctrine—that is, providing they have enough Scottish MPs.
	Despite a policy not being in their manifesto or in the NHS plan; despite a policy not being contained in a Green Paper or a White Paper; despite a policy not being subject to parliamentary scrutiny or a pilot scheme; and despite no consultations with the professions or NHS staff—and, indeed, despite it being half implemented before any parliamentary approval has been received—the Government are entitled, so the doctrine goes, to railroad their policies through not only this House but also their own English Back-Bench MPs who are opposed to the policy. And, of course, they are entitled to railroad all other interested parties as well. That is taking Parliament and the public for granted on a grand scale.
	I have to tell the House that it is with a heavy heart that Members on these Benches will not today press our Amendment No. 161FFF to delete Schedule 1. However, I must say that the tone of the Minister's speech almost made me regret that decision. Some changes have been made to the provisions of Part 1, but we still believe that they fall far short of where they should be. We believe that these proposals are fundamentally flawed in the way I set out in yesterday's debate. Changes, as we know, could have been agreed. Further, even with a review, we now face 18 months of management uncertainty that is of absolutely no benefit to patients or NHS staff.
	A point that we have repeated throughout the passage of the Bill is that devolution of power is perfectly feasible under existing powers held by the Secretary of State. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the very interesting pro forma press release issued—in error, of course—by the department. However, perhaps I may quote a short passage from it. The press release was designed so that trusts could produce their own press releases in the event of a defeat yesterday in the House of Commons:
	"Press release from [your trust] on the defeat in Parliament of legislation that would have allowed [your trust] to become an NHS foundation trust.
	We are obviously very disappointed by the fact that Parliament"—
	let no one say that the Government put words in the mouths of foundation trust applicants—
	"has failed to pass the legislation that would have allowed us to apply for NHS Foundation Trust. We are however heartened by the Secretary of State for Health's Statement to the House of Commons where he pledges himself to continue the process of handing power down to hospitals like us. We understand that, within existing legislation"—
	here is the point—
	"there are certain powers that he can give to [your trust] to provide us with greater local control. And we will be attending a meeting with the SoS in London next Tuesday".
	It is good to know that there is plenty of advance planning.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Government will learn some serious lessons from the events of the past few days. As the Evening Standard commented yesterday,
	"if Dr John Reid and his predecessor Alan Milburn had done a better job of convincing their backbenchers of its merits, the bill could have been passed without bitterness".
	I heartily consent to that view. If the Government continue to behave in this fashion, then I have great forebodings about their proposals for the next Session, in particular for higher education tuition funding over which, if anything, there has been less consultation than over foundation trusts.
	That is about as gracious a concession speech as I can muster.

Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister remind those of us with hazy memories of how many Scottish Members of Parliament there are in his party? How many of them voted for this measure on the second occasion, and where is the seat of the Secretary of State located? That information may enable us to reflect that something seems to have gone wrong with the constitution in the way of devolution.

Lord Warner: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, all those Scottish Members in the other Chamber are elected. I am sure that, if he takes a few steps along the corridor, he will be able to go to the Library and satisfy his curiosity on many of these issues.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords—

Lord Warner: Perhaps I may finish answering the first question.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords—

Lord Warner: I shall give way to the noble Earl, but I should like to do the service of giving an answer to the noble Lord's questions.
	Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that, if he looks at the Hansard report of the debate held in the Commons during the early hours of today, he will see that, if all the Scottish Members are taken out of play, as if they had not voted, the Government majority would have been 10. So the clauses were restored to the Bill and returned to this House by a majority of non-Scottish MPs.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord and temporarily throwing him off his perch. All I sought to do was to remind him that, when he said that my noble friend Lord Elton was not elected, in fact he is elected. It is the noble Lord opposite who is not elected.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I was so distracted by the noble Earl that I failed to mention the words "elected by the people".

Earl Ferrers: At least we were elected under an Act of Parliament.

Lord Elton: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that, had none of those Scottish MPs voted in the first Division, a second Division would not have been called.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

161 Schedule 1, Leave out Schedule 1

COMMONS INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS

Schedule 1, The Commons insist on their disagreement to Amendment No. 161 but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
	161DD Page 108, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 109 and insert—

"Eligibility for membership

3 (1) The persons who may become or continue as members of a public benefit corporation are—
	(a) individuals who live in any area specified in the constitution as the area for a public constituency,
	(b) individuals employed by the corporation under a contract of employment and, if the constitution so provides, individuals who exercise functions for the purposes of the corporation otherwise than under a contract of employment with the corporation,
	(c) if the constitution so provides, individuals who have attended any of the corporation's hospitals as either a patient or the carer of a patient within a period specified in the constitution.
	(2) The constitution may specify one or more areas as areas for public constituencies, each of which must be an electoral area for the purposes of local government elections in England and Wales or an area consisting of two or more such electoral areas.
	(3) A person may become or continue as a member of the corporation by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) only if—
	(a) he is employed by the corporation under a contract of employment which has no fixed term or has a fixed term of at least 12 months, or
	(b) he has been continuously employed by the corporation for at least 12 months or, where he exercises functions for the purposes of the corporation as mentioned in that sub-paragraph, he has done so continuously for such a period.
	Chapter 1 of Part 14 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) applies for the purpose of determining whether an individual has been continuously employed by the corporation, or has continuously exercised functions for the purposes of the corporation, as it applies for the purposes of that Act.
	(4) The constitution may divide those who come within sub-paragraph (1)(b) into two or more descriptions of individuals.
	(5) An individual providing care in pursuance of a contract (including a contract of employment), or as a volunteer for a voluntary organisation, does not come within sub-paragraph (1)(c).
	A voluntary organisation is a body, other than a public or local authority, the activities of which are not carried on for profit.
	(6) The constitution may divide those who come within sub-paragraph (1)(c) into three or more descriptions of individuals, one of which is to comprise the carers of patients.
	(7) The constitution may make further provision as to the circumstances in which a person may not become or continue as a member.

Constituencies

4 (1) Members of a public benefit corporation are referred to as follows.
	(2) Those who live in an area specified in the constitution as an area for any public constituency are referred to collectively as a public constituency.
	(3) Those who come within paragraph 3(1)(b) are referred to collectively as the staff constituency and, if the power in paragraph 3(4) is exercised, each description of members is referred to as a class within that constituency.
	(4) Those who come, within paragraph 3(1)(c) are referred to collectively as the patients' constituency and, if the power in paragraph 3(6) is exercised, each description of members is referred to as a class within that constituency.
	(5) A person who is a member of a constituency, or of a class within a constituency, may not while that membership continues be a member of any other constituency or class.
	(6) A person who comes within paragraph 3(1)(b) may not become or continue as a member of any constituency other than the staff constituency.
	5 The constitution is to require a minimum number of members of each constituency or, where there are classes within the constituency, of each class.

Becoming a member

5A (1) An individual who is eligible to become a member of a public benefit corporation may do so on an application made to the corporation.
	(2) The constitution may provide for any individual who is—
	(a) eligible to become a member of the staff constituency, and
	(b) invited by the corporation to become a member of that constituency (and, where there are classes within the constituency, as a member of the appropriate class), to become a member of the corporation as a member of that constituency (and class) without an application being made, unless he informs the corporation that he does not wish to do so.
	(3) The constitution may provide for any individual who is—
	(a) eligible to become a member of the patients' constituency (otherwise than as the carer of a patient), and
	(b) invited by the corporation to become a member of a specified constituency (and where there are classes within the constituency, a member of the specified class), to become a member of the corporation as a member of that constituency (and class) without an application being made, unless he informs the corporation that he does not wish to do so.
	(4) The constituency and, where applicable, class to be specified—
	(a) if he is eligible to be a member of any public constituency, is that constituency,
	(b) otherwise, is the patients' constituency and, where applicable, the class of which he is eligible to become a member"
	161EE Page 109, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert—
	"(4) Members of a constituency or, where there are classes within it, members of each class may elect any of their number to be a member of the board"
	161FF Page 109, leave out line 32 and insert "members of the corporation other than those who come within paragraph 3(1)(b)"
	161GG Page 109, line 33, leave out from "least" to end of line and insert "three members of the board are to be elected by the staff constituency or, where there are classes within it, at least one member of the board is to be elected by each class and at least three members are to be elected altogether"
	161HH Page 109, line 39, leave out "the area specified under paragraph 3(1)(a)" and insert "an area specified in the constitution as the area for a public constituency"
	161JJ Page 110, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
	"( ) But such a member ceases to hold office if he ceases to be a member of the corporation"
	161KK Page 110, line 27, after second "executive", insert "(and accounting officer)"
	161LL Page 110, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) One of the executive directors is to be a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist (within the meaning of the Dentists Act 1984 (c. 24)); and another is to be a registered nurse or a registered midwife"
	161MM Page 110, line 33, leave out "the public constituency" and insert "a public constituency or the patients' constituency"
	161NN Page 110, line 43, leave out "the chief executive" and insert "a committee consisting of the chairman, the chief executive and the other non-executive directors"
	161OO Page 111, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
	"( ) The appointment of a chief executive requires the approval of the board of governors"
	161PP Schedule 1, page 111, line 8, at end insert "but the constitution may make provision for those matters to be decided pending the establishment of such a committee.

Initial directors of former NHS trusts

17A (1) This paragraph applies, where the application for authorisation is made under section 4, to the exercise of the powers mentioned in paragraph 16 to appoint the initial non-executive directors and the initial chief executive.
	(2) The power to appoint the initial chairman of the corporation is to be exercised by appointing the chairman of the NHS trust, if he wishes to be appointed.
	(3) The power to appoint the other initial non-executive directors of the corporation is to be exercised, so far as possible, by appointing any of the non-executive directors of the NHS trust (other than the chairman) who wish to be appointed.
	(4) A person appointed in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) or (3) is to be appointed for the unexpired period of his term of office as chairman or (as the case may be) non-executive director of the NHS trust; but if, on any such appointment, that period is less than 12 months, he is to be appointed for 12 months.
	(5) The power to appoint the initial chief executive of the corporation is to be exercised by appointing the chief officer of the NHS trust, if he wishes to be appointed.
	(6) Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 15(3) do not apply to the appointment of any initial non-executive director in pursuance of this paragraph; and paragraph 16(4) does not apply to the appointment of the initial chief executive of the corporation in pursuance of sub-paragraph (5)"
	161QQ Page 111, line 12, at end insert "and, where there are classes within it, the class to which he belongs"
	161RR Page 111, line 13, at end insert—
	"( ) a register of interests of the members of the board of governors"
	161SS Page 111, line 18, at end insert "members of the board of governors and of"
	161TT Page 111, line 20, leave out from beginning to "available" and insert "A public benefit corporation is to make the following documents"
	161UU Page 111, leave out line 25
	161VV Page 111, line 32, at end insert—
	"( ) The corporation is also to make the registers mentioned in paragraph 18 available for inspection by members of the public, except in circumstances prescribed by regulations; and, so far as the registers are required to be available—
	(a) they are to be available free of charge at all reasonable times,
	(b) a person who requests it is to be provided with a copy of or extract from them"
	161WW Page 111, line 33, leave out "the copy or extract" and insert "a copy or extract under this paragraph"
	161XX Page 111, line 38, at end insert—
	"( ) An officer of the Audit Commission may be the auditor if he is appointed by the board with the agreement of the Commission"
	161YY Page 112, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
	"( ) Where an officer of the Audit Commission is appointed as auditor, the Commission is to charge the public benefit corporation such fees for his services as will cover the full cost of providing them.
	( ) The corporation is to establish a committee of non-executive directors as an audit committee to perform such monitoring, reviewing and other functions as are appropriate.
	( ) In this paragraph "the Audit Commission" means the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales"
	161ZZ Page 112, line 13, at end insert—
	"( ) If trustees are appointed under section 22, the Comptroller and Auditor General may also examine—
	(a) the accounts kept by the trustees,
	(b) any records relating to them, and
	(c) any report of an auditor on them"
	161AAA Page 112, leave out line 31 and insert—
	"( ) The constitution is to provide for the functions of the corporation under this paragraph to be delegated to the accounting officer"
	161BBB Page 112, line 38, leave out "and the registrar of companies"
	161CCC Page 112, line 41, leave out "its public constituency" and insert "any public constituency and (if there is one) of the patients' constituency"
	161DDD Page 113, line 2, leave out "him" and insert "it"
	161EEE Page 113, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
	"( ) The document containing the information is to be prepared by the directors.
	( ) In preparing the document the directors must have regard to the views of the board of governors"

Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 161, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 161DD to 161EEE.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 161, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 161DD to 161EEE.—(Lord Warner.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 161FFF not moved.]

Istanbul: Terrorist Attack

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now make a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"I should like to make a short Statement in respect of the bomb blasts in Istanbul this morning. The House will, I am sure, understand that as information is coming in all the time, it has not been possible to make copies of the Statement for distribution to honourable Members in the usual way. Copies will be placed in the Vote Office as soon as possible.
	"There was a series of explosions this morning in Istanbul, one of which was targeted at the headquarters of the HSBC bank and another at the British consulate-general building. It is too early to establish all the details, but these are clearly appalling acts of terrorism. It is sadly already clear that a number of British, Turkish and other people have been killed in the explosions. Latest reports are that 17 have died and that more than 300 have been injured. A number of members of the British consulate-general staff are still unaccounted for and, in addition, a number are injured. We are obviously working very hard to establish the full scale of the tragedy to British consulate-general staff, staff of HSBC and all others caught up in it. I know that I speak for the whole House in my utter condemnation of these atrocities and in expressing my condolences to the families of those killed and sympathy to those who have been injured.
	"I spoke about an hour ago to the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul. I expressed to him my sincere condolences to the Turkish Government and people for the Turkish casualties, and I stressed our solidarity with Turkey and the Turkish authorities. I also spoke to Peter Westmacott, our ambassador in Ankara, who is travelling right now to Istanbul in the company of the Turkish Interior Minister, Mr Aksu. The Foreign Office will this afternoon be sending out a consular rapid deployment team to join staff travelling there from the embassy in Ankara. We have opened emergency units in London to co-ordinate our response.
	"Following the horrific attacks on synagogues in Istanbul last Saturday, which killed people of both the Jewish faith and the Muslim faith, we have already revised our travel advice to take account of those attacks and to warn of a significant threat from terrorism. We are revising the travel advice again in the light of these explosions to warn against all but the most essential travel to Istanbul. Although it is too early to say precisely who was behind the explosions, they have every hallmark of the cowardly and indiscriminate acts of terrorism of Al'Qaeda and its associates.
	"These attacks are an affront to democracy and to the entire civilised world. They are an affront to people of every faith and religion in the world. We shall stand united with the international community in the fight against this appalling global terrorism".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the House will be as grateful as I am to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement on this ugly tragedy, the details and size of which are still not fully apparent and are unfolding as we speak. We of course join wholeheartedly and totally in the condolences and sympathies to the relatives of the bereaved and the hundreds who have been injured. We realise that there may be more bad news yet to come and that it is difficult at this early stage to confirm the details. We pray and hope that our consulate staff and nationals—and, indeed, all those involved—were spared as much injury as possible and that the news is not quite as bad as some of the early Reuters reports and others have suggested. But that may be wishing in the wind because this was clearly a horrific event involving targets with a British connection, most obviously the consulate and the HSBC bank.
	Turkey is a strong and valued ally of ours in NATO. We admire Turkey and the way in which the Turkish people and society are seeking to bring themselves fully into the modern world and to prepare for membership of the European Union—which I, for one, would like to see as soon as possible—and thus help bring about the emergence of the grand union of the future. I hope that we can indicate the warmth of that support in this hour of tragedy for the people of Turkey and the people of Istanbul.
	There are one or two questions that I should put to the Minister about the situation as it unfolds. Was there any pre-warning at all after the synagogue horrors on Saturday? Is there any solid news that Istanbul will be particularly targeted, or is it an emerging pattern that encompasses Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries? Were extra precautions taken at the British consulate, which, as many noble Lords will know better than I, is a magnificent building? It was originally our embassy, given to Queen Victoria by the Sultan, and is even now being refurbished.
	Has this horror led instantaneously to warnings to all our embassies and consulates around the world? They are all in the front line now. Indeed, there are some who say that these attacks on Istanbul, the bridge into Europe, are a message and a warning that the Al'Qaeda brigade, or a franchise, or those acting in related terrorist groups, are trying to move back into the European landmass. Clearly we have more than ever to be on our guard, totally and absolutely, against these evil people.
	I agree with the noble Baroness and the Foreign Secretary about the broader scene. There can be with these terrorists—and one defines "terrorists" as those who deliberately target civilians, women and children; not those who fight wars for freedom but those who deliberately set out to kill the innocent—no appeasement and no negotiation.
	Finally, I observe that this is a sad note on which to end this parliamentary Session. But it is a reminder that this is an age of terrorism. I believe I am right in saying that we began this Parliament with debates on the same subject. It will clearly be a long, hard haul and we will need the steeliest of resolve to see us through these dark times.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement from the Commons. We all appreciate that it is not helpful at this time to ask for further details from the Government when information is still coming through. We extend our condolences to the families of the members of the consulate staff who have clearly lost their lives and to the families of many others who have been killed and injured in the middle of Istanbul.
	I was in Istanbul four weeks ago. I walked around that area and I had dinner with a number of members of the Istanbul Jewish community. I am very conscious that this brings us quite close to home. It is a part of our world.
	The Turkish Government represent the moderate face of Islam. It is one of the best developments that Turkey has seen for many years. Clearly there are those within Turkey who do not wish the Government to succeed. That is part of the attack. It is not only an attack on us and the Turkish Jewish community, it is an attack on the reconciliation of Islam with democracy that the AKP happily appears to represent. This has to be the future development of Turkey. We must do everything that we can to help the Turkish Government resist this counter movement.
	I make one small criticism of the Statement. Whatever one may say about suicide bombers, they are not cowardly. They take their own lives and those of others because they have a very deep but mistaken faith in resisting the world in which we want to live. We must understand the nature of what is now a clear, long-term threat to our open secular society in those terms. We have discontented youths—often discontented middle-class youths—across the Muslim world from Singapore to Sheffield, who feel that they have a calling to go out and commit these dreadful atrocities at the cost of their own lives. There has to be a broad and long-term response to what we must now recognise is a long-term threat.
	We have to be tough on terrorism but also tough on the causes of terrorism. That means that we have to consider not only Western policy across the whole of the Middle East and Western policy towards education in the third world, particularly in the Muslim world, but also about better relations with our own British Muslim community. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell—no appeasement, no negotiation—but we also need to have a clear understanding of what mistakenly motivates these young men. We need to consider how we can remove those causes and find a bridge towards helping them to come to terms with our world.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for their responses. I thank them also for their expressions of condolence.
	The Statement made clear that the position is changing all the time in terms of the news we have available. I thank both noble Lords for their commendable restraint in not pressing me too hard at the moment on matters that I cannot answer in detail or with any certainty because news is still coming in.
	It is clear that diplomats and locally engaged staff—and we should not forget how faithfully we are served overseas by people who are locally engaged and have worked for many years in our consulates-general, consulates, embassies and high commissions—employees of HSBC, Turkish citizens and others may have lost their lives or been hurt in this morning's explosions. We are doing everything that we can to get a clear picture.
	The Statement made clear that my right honourable friend had spoken to Her Majesty's ambassador in Ankara, Sir Peter Westmacott, this morning. I have spoken to Sir Peter since that conversation. He had not then arrived at the consulate-general in Istanbul but was preparing himself for a very difficult situation on the ground when he gets there. I can think of no diplomat able to deal with such a situation better than Sir Peter.
	I also thank both noble Lords for what they said about the attack being an attack on Turkey, too, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made clear. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, quite rightly drew our attention to the fact that Turkey joining the EU and the Turkish accession is something to which we very much look forward. We believe that as well as being an attack on British interests, this was an attack on Turkey. My right honourable friend made that clear in his discussions with his opposite number, Minister Gul, this morning.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked specifically about warnings. There have been general warnings to our interests in Turkey. The travel advice was changed earlier this week as a result of the bombings of the synagogues, referred to in my right honourable friend's Statement. The travel advice at the time of the explosion made it clear that there was a significant threat from terrorism. A number of recent terrorist incidents, including the major attacks in Istanbul on the 15th November, urged us to say to those travelling that they should be vigilant in all parts of the country, especially in the vicinity of potential terrorist targets. Among the examples referred to was the possibility of attacks on United Kingdom or United States diplomatic missions.
	I believe the travel advice warned of significant threats from terrorism and pointed specifically at United Kingdom and United States diplomatic missions. Of course, the advice has changed this morning in the light of these further attacks—it advises against all but the most essential travel to Istanbul. As your Lordships will know, the travel advice is kept under constant review. The Foreign Secretary takes a very close interest and the travel advice is often referred to him from various parts of the world where we believe there is a high threat.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, also asked about extra precautions. Extra precautions were taken; I am not prepared to go into details about what they were, but there is still a very difficult security position on the ground. The bombs were on a vehicle; I do not know what the vehicle was, and I am not aware of the extent of the damage. Those of your Lordships who have been to the consulate-general in Istanbul, as I have, will know that there is a perimeter wall. If that wall has been breached in any way, going into details about the security within the wall would be a mistake at the moment.
	As you would expect, after the synagogue bombings there was liaison with the Turkish authorities and additional precautions were taken. I agree with what has been said about the beautiful building that has been so sadly defaced today.
	As for warnings to other embassies, there is of course a very high level of threat to British interests in many parts of the world at the moment. Our Foreign Office travel advice, as I have indicated to your Lordships, is reviewed constantly. So, too, are aspects of security for our staff when they serve overseas. I see reports about the judgments drawn by those from a number of different agencies who visit our embassies, high commissions and consulates in different parts of the world and make recommendations about any additional security that is necessary. I am afraid, as has been demonstrated all too well today, that these are very difficult times for many of our staff overseas. We are absolutely aware of our responsibility to do what we can for the safety of the staff, both diplomats and locally engaged staff.
	Of course I agree that terrorism has to be fought; I agree that this will be a long haul and that steely resolve will be necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made various observations on the nature of cowardice which we may want to debate on another occasion, as we have debated the nature of terrorism. What we can say, however, is that this was a wicked act, carried out with an absolutely indiscriminate desire to kill as many people as possible and hurt as many people as possible.
	Much as we have to look at some of the causes of terrorism around the world, as I know the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, would be the first to agree, that should in no way diminish our resolve to fight these appalling acts of terrorism and do everything we can to counter them.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I would like to associate myself fully with the unanimous shock and horror in this House at this appalling act of indiscriminate violence. It has been a sad week for violence and terrorist activities against both coalition and Jewish targets. I totally support what the Minister has said about our need for continuing resolve in opposing, fighting and, if I may say so, understanding these acts of violence.
	This has also been a week in which there has been striking evidence of public opposition in this country to United States policy in the Middle East and on Iraq. I pay tribute to what I have read of President Bush's reported remarks about the Arab-Israel dispute this week. But these have been remarks, and I hope the Minister will agree that the only way in which we can reduce opposition to United States policy in this country and, more importantly, reduce these appalling continuing acts of violence is if the United States Administration are prepared to put those remarks into action.
	President Bush gave Mr Blair some very firm promises in Belfast that he would put as much personal energy into trying to resolve the Arab-Israel problem as Mr Blair had put into helping to resolve the Northern Ireland problem. It is time that the United States lived up to that promise. Most of us know that even the middle-ranking delegate who was sent to Palestine and Israel on behalf of the United States Administration was withdrawn. As far as I know, there is no evidence whatever that the United States is doing anything practical at the moment to help resolve that disastrous issue which lies at the bottom of much of the resentment of not only those who demonstrated in London this week but, more importantly, the Muslim world.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for what he has said. I am particularly grateful, given that his remarks come from such a distinguished former Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office. I know that his words will be read with great gratitude by a number of diplomats and locally engaged staff around the world.
	I also thank the noble Lord, whom I know has very strong and well known views about the situation in Palestine-Israel, for what he said about the remarks of President Bush this week. I returned from Beirut only this morning. I cannot help observing that Beirut was a byword for terrorism and criminality 10 or 15 years ago. Now it is a city which, for all its difficulties—and there are so many difficulties in Lebanon—demonstrates that some of the causes of terrorism can be overcome and some of the long-held vicious, cruel hatred can also be put to one side.
	When news came through, as it did yesterday evening, of the unanimous passing of the United Nations Security Council resolution on the road map, there was, among the group of Lebanese people whom I was with at the time, an enormous feeling of upliftment. They felt that there was at least some way in which the world had tried to pull together on the crucial issue of Palestine and Israel.
	The noble Lord exhorts us to keep reminding the President of the United States that he has to live up to the remarks he made at Hillsborough. I remind your Lordships that this is not just a role for the United States of America. Yes, of course the US has a particular role and a particular relationship with Israel, but we all have our responsibilities in this matter. The quartet is a group of four that signed up to the road map, not just the United States, as it is so often described in our media. There were four signatories, and it behoves the United Nations, the EU and Russia to play their part in this.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, we all perfectly understand that the Minister cannot go into any sort of detail about security measures which have been taken with regard to our embassies, high commissions and consulates around the world. She spoke a little earlier about recommendations which have been made on a continual basis with regard to improving security. Does she think it would be wise at this stage to look at those recommendations for improving security which have not been followed up or not yet implemented? Having that urgent review might avoid a similar occurrence elsewhere.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, as I know that he wants to be as helpful as possible. These issues are taken very seriously. On the very few occasions when I have felt that some security issues may not have moved as fast as I would have liked them to move, and have followed up the situation with officials, I have found them extraordinarily responsive. I would like the noble Lord to put out of his mind any thought of what he suggested, given the circumstances of what we know so far of what happened in Istanbul this morning. This was a brutal act of terrorism, and those who perpetrated it did so in an indiscriminate way that would probably have resulted in some loss of life in any case.
	We must be very careful in considering what we are doing to protect not only British lives but also other lives around the world. Let us not lose sight of the stark and terrible fact that the people responsible for these deaths are the terrorists. No effort to spread blame around among others should be indulged in by any of us. I know that the noble Lord was not doing that—but it is important to keep our focus on the fact that those who take life in that indiscriminate fashion are the ones responsible for the loss of that life.

Lord Elton: My Lords, nobody would dissent from that. I subscribe to all the views expressed by noble Lords of horror and revulsion about what has happened. However, we have to look at the wider picture, and this is part of a series, which is not concluded, of violent activity that is going to kill a lot of people. We have already heard of one causative factor from the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond.
	I ask the noble Baroness and her colleagues to consider another, which was raised in the debate on Cancun and again yesterday in a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I refer to the extraordinary disparity, not only in trade but also in wealth, between different parts of the world. We live as members of a very small minority of the world's population who enjoy a very large majority of its wealth. It is not just compassion that is needed; self-interest says that we have to address that disparity if the world is not to be a ready recruiting ground for terrorists. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to disaffected youth, and that is one reason why they are disaffected.
	I repeat what I said before—that merely adjusting terms of trade is not going to be enough to alter such a gross imbalance. If anything is going to be effective, it is going to cost us. That will be a subject of political contention. I still believe that political parties in this country must agree a wise programme that will not be competitively reduced over successive general elections.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his remarks of horror and revulsion for what has taken place this morning. I agree with much of what he says about the nature of terrorism; indeed, when we have had more leisure to discuss the matter in debates on the nature of terrorism, the point that he raised has been made on all sides of your Lordships' House.
	Of course, poverty disaffects. Poverty very often provides the fertile soil in which terrorism flourishes. That is true.

Lord Elton: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Order!

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am advised that, on a Statement, the noble Lord's intervention is not in order. However, as I was agreeing with him, I am not sure what he wanted to correct me on. I do believe that poverty provides the fertile soil. I do not, however, believe that we should overlook the fact that many millions of poor people around the world lead decent, law-abiding lives and would never dream of being drawn into this sort of carnage and horror.
	There is a great deal to be said about the nature of poverty and trade. However, I honestly believe that at this stage a broader view on that would be more appropriate on a different day.

Lord Judd: My Lords, this has been terrible news. I would like to associate myself, as, I am sure, would many of my colleagues, with a sense of real feeling for those who have suffered, their families, and the rest. Would my noble friend agree that, in refusing in any way to begin to excuse what has been done, or the ruthlessness and manipulation of those who have done it, we must remember—as she herself has just said—that extremism and terrorism breed in an atmosphere of injustice? Therefore, it is essential that, in our response to terrorism, we constantly redouble our efforts to demonstrate that we have the highest commitment to human rights and justice in all that we do. Unfortunately, situations such as that in Guantanamo Bay add fuel to the arguments of extremists who want to recruit terrorists.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for his condolences. Of course, I agree that we cannot in any sense begin to excuse those who perpetrated the terrible act this morning. When faced with terrorism, I believe that there are some very interesting questions about human rights and civil rights to be considered. It is a very difficult question, and it is not enough simply to say that we must uphold those rights at all costs, if, in doing so, we allow terrorists to circumvent the human rights of others. We may allow a situation to develop in which terrorists find it very easy to take other people's lives.
	The question is difficult, and we must consider it realistically. Sometimes something has to give, particularly on civil rights, to ensure that the fundamental right to life for citizens going about their normal everyday business is upheld. Of course, I agree with my noble friend that such issues all hang together. However, when we assess those positions, we have to be very careful not solely to consider one side but to take into account the effect that that will have on the vulnerability of citizens who are simply going about their normal daily lives.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister's noble friend asked her whether it was essential that we should have a clear understanding of what motivates the young people who commit these terrorist acts. We have had three different explanations, from the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, of what underpins the motivation of those young people.
	Does the noble Baroness recall that, in a recent debate on religion and terrorism, it was suggested that the Government should conduct research on those matters? In particular, it was suggested that they consider the ideologues of the Salafist school of Islam and its two principal ideologues, Qutb and Maudoodi, to see whether anything in the literature might give us a clue to the intentions or habits of those who commit these acts. Has the Foreign Office, or have the Government, undertaken any such research? If so, could they refer your Lordships to the analysis made of it?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is always important to get behind the motives for attacks such as the one that took place this morning. The fact that we have had three different points of view does not mean that the analysis of those who put them forward is mutually exclusive. Very often, these are all threads that come together in the motivation of those who carry out such outrages.
	In the Foreign Office at the moment we are considering ways in which we might have outreach into a number of communities. We are looking at ways through which we might understand how a number of different cultures work, so as to create a world in which we can all live where there is better mutual understanding. Clearly that is not just work for the Foreign Office; there is work to be done in a number of different government departments. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made very important points about trade, the way in which we deal with each other and poverty. When something arises on those issues that can usefully be shared I am sure that the various departments that have carried out that work will do so. For the moment we have a very difficult and immediate threat to the United Kingdom's interests around the world. I very much hope that the resources of the Foreign Office are concentrated on dealing with those who have suffered so much today, and on considering some of the immediate issues that arise there from.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, first, in the light of these horrendous and tragic events, will the Government renew their representations to countries such as Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, within whose boundaries there may be terrorists, or organisations supporting terrorism, that they should intensify their action against them? Secondly, can the Minister at this early stage give any indication at all whether the terrorists who perpetrated this awful crime are Turkish nationals or came from outside that country?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord any further details over and above those given in the Statement by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who said that the attack had some of the characteristics of the Al'Qaeda terrorist organisation or its close associates. We shall have to await further information on that. The Statement made clear that a rapid reaction group from our consulate division will travel to Turkey later today. I understand that that will also comprise some police officers who we hope will be able to deploy their expertise. Sadly, there is a great deal of expertise in this country regarding terrorist outrages. We hope that they will be able to add their expertise to that on the ground on the part of the Turkish authorities.
	As regards renewing representation, the fact is that representations on these issues are constant, not only with the countries that the noble Lord enumerated but also with many other countries around the world. As the Minister with responsibility for the Middle East, I talk about counter-terrorism on virtually every overseas trip that I make. We exchange information, expertise and new ways of trying to gather human and other forms of intelligence about terrorist organisations around the world. Those organisations are becoming better and better organised and the international community itself must become much better organised in the way that we deal with them.

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I declare an interest as a past chairman of the HSBC group. I have spoken to staff at the bank today who are bemused by the whole situation. The bank has a record of over 100 years' service in the Middle East through HSBC and its various subsidiaries. Like the Minister, at present they have no firm figures on casualties; all they have said is that they will not be frightened out of the area by such terrorist acts.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that important point. HSBC is a flagship organisation, almost an institution, in this country and overseas. Of course our condolences extend to that organisation. Over the next few days we shall stay in constant touch with it. The staff that we are sending to Istanbul will deal not only with our consulate staff but naturally also with those HSBC staff who have suffered in the attack.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although it is right that we should condemn these atrocities and express horror at them, that will not have much effect on those who carry them out? As a famous Russian once said, the object of terrorism is to terrorise. That is what these people are trying to do. The fact that we deplore what they do and express horror at it may to some extent salve our own consciences but it will not have much effect on the people who carry out the terrorism.
	When we consider what motivates these terrorists we should remember that perhaps the main threat of terrorism to our way of life comes from Islamic extremists. They are motivated by one simple thing—hatred of our way of life, our religion and our culture. While it is true to say that poverty is a breeding ground for terrorism, the Minister will probably agree that whatever we do to cure the conditions in which terrorism breeds, one thing we must do is to recognise that we have to meet force with force. We must be as ruthless with terrorists as they are with us. Although we may rightly say that there are certain breeding grounds for terrorism, even if we solve all those problems, the threat will not be removed. Islamic fundamentalism or Islamic extremism will persist whatever we do about those other matters.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is right that condemnations such as the one that I made from the Dispatch Box today on behalf of my right honourable friend, and the one that he made in another place in which all your Lordships joined, will not have much effect on terrorists. However, if I may say so, I do not believe that is the point. It is to the point to offer what comfort we can by way of sympathy and condolences to those who have suffered. Those are important messages. It is important that they understand that this country's Parliament has sent that message to them at a terrible time.
	That also gives us the opportunity to say very clearly that we do not intend to give in to this kind of terrorism. The noble Lord is right to say that we must meet force with force. Of course, we do. Some people will never understand any message except the stark and terrible message that if they use that kind of force they can expect to be met with brutal and terrible force in return. However, there is another message. There is another message for the young people of whom the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, spoke and for the people about whom my noble friend Lord Judd is so concerned; namely, that we must address some of the real problems in the world at present that allow the evil people who perpetrate these kind of horrors to recruit others to their ranks. We have to look at both sides of the question.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure.
	At present the Commons have either just begun, or are about to begin, their consideration of our message to them on the Criminal Justice Bill. I am unable to say at present precisely when, or if, they will send their message back to us, which of course will determine how long it will take us to process whatever message we receive so that we can debate it in an orderly fashion. However, I think it is most unlikely that we shall recommence business before 5 p.m. at the absolute earliest. The sensible way to proceed is for us all to watch the annunciator. Immediately we know anything regarding messages from the other place, we shall put an announcement on the annunciator. We shall reconvene to consider any messages on the Criminal Justice Bill as soon as we possibly can after that.
	Moved, That the House do adjourn during pleasure.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 3.29 to 8.10 p.m.]

Criminal Justice Bill

A message was brought from the Commons, That they agree to a Lords amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill; they do not insist on an amendment to which the Lords have disagreed; they have made a consequential amendment to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships; and they insist on their disagreement with your Lordships to the remaining amendments, in which the Lords insisted, but have made amendments to the words so restored to the Bill to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons message be considered forthwith.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 69 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

33 Leave out Clause 42

COMMONS INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS

The Commons insist on their disagreement to this Amendment but propose the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
	33H Page 28, line 34, after "where" insert "(a)"
	33I Page 28, line 35, at end insert "and
	(b) notice has been given under section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (notices in serious or complex fraud cases) in respect of that offence or those offences."
	33J Page 28, line 39, leave out "both of the following two conditions are" and insert "the following condition is"
	33K Page 28, line 39, leave out "must" and insert "may"
	33L Page 28, line 41, at end insert— "(3A) The judge must consult the Lord Chief Justice or a judge nominated by him before making such an order."
	33M Page 28, line 42, leave out "The first" and insert "That"
	33N Page 29, line 3, leave out subsection (5)
	33O Page 29, line 9, leave out "both of those two conditions are" and insert "that condition is"

LORDS INSISTENCE AND REASON

The Lords disagree to Commons Amendments 33H to 33O, and insist on their Amendment No. 33 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, for the following reason—
	33P Because the Lords maintain their view that it is inappropriate to make provision for prosecution applications for certain complex or lengthy trials to be conducted without a jury.

COMMONS INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS TO THE WORDS SO RESTORED TO THE BILL

The Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their amendment but propose the following amendments to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement and the following consequential amendment to the Bill:—
	33Q Page 28, line 34, after 'where' insert '(a)'.
	33R Page 28, line 35, at end insert 'and
	(b) notice has been given under section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (notices in serious or complex fraud cases) in respect of that offence or those offences.'.
	33S Page 28, line 39, leave out 'both of the following two conditions are' and insert 'the condition in subsection (4) is'.
	33T Page 28, line 39, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'
	33U Page 28, line 41, at end insert— '(3A) The judge may not make such an order without the approval of the Lord Chief Justice or a judge nominated by him.'
	33V Page 28, line 42, leave out 'first'.
	33W Page 28, line 45, leave out from 'that' to 'be' in line 46 and insert 'the interests of justice require that serious consideration should be given to the question of whether the trial should'.
	33X Page 29, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
	33Y Page 29, line 3, leave out subsection (5).
	33Z Clause 42, page 29, line 9, leave out 'both of those two conditions are' and insert 'that condition is'.
	33AAClause 42, page 172, line 3, at end insert—
	'(aa) an order under section 305(3) bringing section 42 into force,'

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 33 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33Q to 33AA.
	With your Lordships' leave, I intend to speak in relation to all amendments at this stage. I hope that that will suit the hour and your Lordships' desire. I am pleased to be able to tell noble Lords that all parties have reached an accommodation in relation to the matters outstanding between ourselves and the other place. When this House considered the Bill earlier today, we reached a happy agreement on some issues, but sent the Bill back to the Commons in relation to four unresolved issues.
	Those issues were on Clause 41, which is on trial by jury alone at the defendant's application, Clause 42, which is about serious fraud cases, Clause 96, which is concerned with evidence of bad character and propensity, and Clause 101, which is about offences committed by the defendant when a child. Those were all areas where this House had raised legitimate concerns that the Government had been considering very carefully. On a number of them, the other place had already proposed some possible concessions. I am pleased to be able to report that agreement now seems to have been reached on all the outstanding issues.
	The Government have listened very carefully to the concerns about Clause 41. We did not intend it to be the start of what some have described, I think, as a slippery slope. We are very aware that similar provisions have worked well in other jurisdictions, as I have mentioned. However, we are prepared not to proceed with the clause, and the other House has not insisted on its disagreement with this House on the issue.
	On Clause 42, we continued to be concerned that a means would need to be found to allow long and complex serious fraud cases to be brought properly to justice. As we know, there are not many cases to which the provisions are likely to apply. I am pleased to be able to report that the Government have agreed with both opposition parties to look more at the details of the possible alternatives, such as an expert panel or assessors. That can be linked with our commitment to bring forward at an early opportunity the Law Commission's recommendations on multiple offending, and our work on corruption. We have given a commitment that we shall not implement the provision before that further work is undertaken and has been completed. An amendment was put forward in the other place that would require implementation to be by statutory instrument, agreed by affirmative order in both Houses.
	The other place has agreed that Clause 96 should remain in the Bill, amended to include the presumption that a conviction of the same or similar offence should be retained. Finally, the Government have further addressed the concerns on Clause 101, which were set out so energetically by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We are specifying that a previous conviction committed while a juvenile can be admitted in adult proceedings only for an indictable offence when the conviction was for an indictable offence.
	I trust that the amendments are acceptable to your Lordships, and that we can now genuinely rejoice at the successful passage of this important piece of legislation. It has taken a great deal of our time. I hope that I can say that much of that has been a very great pleasure. I would like to thank all noble Lords opposite who have participated, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with whom I have dealt so fully on so many occasions, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Kingsland, to name but three. I want also to thank Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches who have been so numerous that I hesitate to mention in case I leave someone out. But I thank in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, did not participate, save for being always present. So many took part.
	On these Benches, I thank all of those who sat beside me and have painfully gone through the Bill in my company. In particular, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, our Attorney-General, who has discharged his duty with such distinction and ability.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I commend the amendments to the House.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 33 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33Q to 33AA.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I want to respond to the warm and gracious words of the Minister and to thank her for her comments. There was perhaps a little problem earlier today, but it has been resolved and we can look forward. I want also to thank the Minister for the tribute she paid and to join with her in thanking all noble Lords who participated in debates on the Bill. I thank, too, those who participated in the other place. I believe that the quality and standard of the debates have been exceedingly high and a great tribute to the work of this House.
	In conclusion, I said earlier today that this discredited Government had a tendency to interfere with the constitutional structure of this country and I believe that as regards trial by jury they tried to do so again. But it was in the view of the majority of your Lordships a step too far and I thank all those who supported the move to say that jury trial has been with us for 800 years and should remain as strong as ever.
	On several previous occasions, this Government have sought to restrict the jury system and I hope that this will be the last occasion on which this House has acted to save it. I am grateful to Members on all sides who have played a part and contributed to our success again today in safeguarding our precious freedom.
	I want to single out the Home Secretary. As Members of this House will know, I have always paid tribute to the work of the Home Secretary, not just because he was my pair in the other place but because I respect him as an honourable man. When he rose to verify the agreement, I knew that it would be an agreement honoured. I thank him and all his colleagues in the Home Office for having reached a sensible agreement this evening.
	That we have been able to proceed in preserving trial by jury is a vindication of our system which monitors and controls the exchanges between the two Houses of Parliament. The events of the past few days are precisely not a pretext to change this House. Rather, they underline the importance of maintaining a strong and independent House of Lords. The late Lord Devlin once famously said:
	"The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen".
	Let no one who cares for liberty, when they listen to the gracious Speech next week and the Government's plans for this House, be in any doubt that had it not been for the independence of this House the right to jury trial would have been abolished in a range of cases.
	We welcome the undertakings given by the Home Secretary in relation to serious and complex trials. While we would have preferred that Clause 42 had not been included in primary statute, we can accept it on the basis that it is now, as I heard it described in the other place, effectively "on ice". The powers can be exercised only after affirmative resolutions of both Houses.
	This House rarely votes down affirmative resolutions but it retains the unfettered right to do so. It would now be right for me to put the Government on notice that, should they ever seek to exercise that power, we on this side would view it as one of the rare occasions when we would feel entitled to invite the House to vote down an implementing order.
	We have reached a satisfactory conclusion today, and I pay tribute to the leadership of my noble friend Lady Anelay, my noble friend Lord Kingsland and the great support of colleagues. However, in relation to jury trial, I suspect that this House would do well to remain carefully and continually on guard.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, those of us who have practised in jurisdictions where jury trials have been abolished know that it is the first step of an authoritarian regime to reduce the participation of members of the community in trials involving freedom and liberty. Consequently, the struggle for the principle for which we on these Benches have fought throughout the Bill, in conjunction with noble Lords from the Official Opposition, has been one that we have enjoyed waging.
	In one court in Chester, where I spent 10 years as a junior barrister, there is a window with stained glass depicting the crest of Cheshire. Underneath it is a motto which states:
	"Strive mightily but eat and drink as friends".
	I hope that, although we on these Benches have striven mightily along with our friends from other parties and from all over the House, we shall still eat and drink as friends with those on the Government Front Bench and those who have supported them from the Government Back Benches.
	I add my tribute to the enormous amount of work carried out by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on this Bill. Most certainly we found her to be a person to whom we could talk with confidence and trust. She has always been open and honest with this House. Although we have had our differences, and perhaps at times I have been in the forefront in emphasising some of those differences, I regard her contribution to improving the criminal justice system of this country as extremely important. I also add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—again, with whom I have had conflict but, again, on the basis that we have striven mightily but we shall eat and drink as friends in the future.
	Therefore, we come to the end of what has been an over-long Bill. I hope that the Government learn the lesson that, when it comes to the criminal justice system, trying to eat in one whole a Bill of this size is not the way to proceed and that next time proposals for improving the criminal justice system come before us, we should have something a little more digestible. I am very happy that we have come to the conclusions reached today.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I believe that it would be appropriate to respond to the very generous comments and compliments that have been made. I shall not say that they are deserved but I am grateful for them none the less. I can certainly reassure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that we shall strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends. It is right for me to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and to remind him that we on these Benches have loved and supported jurors as valiantly as he. In moving our provisions in the Bill we have secured the maintenance of justice and jury trial by ensuring that those who would seek to diminish it by intimidation, by threat and by bribery will not succeed.
	We have also taken steps to ensure that those who see themselves in the financial sense as being untouchable as a result of their dealings in fraud also will not succeed. I hear what the noble Lord has said. I thank him for the concession that has been made in relation to those matters because we have changed the system, but we have changed it for the better and we have preserved it. I endorse the comments made by my honourable friend Vera Baird in the other place who I believe succinctly expressed the good that we have done. I take this opportunity to commend, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary who, with me, has striven to do justice and we have prevailed.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

121Leave out Clause 96 The Commons insist on their disagreement to Amendments Nos. 114 to 119 and 121 to 131 but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
	121AThe Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their amendment but propose the following amendment to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement:—
	121B Page 63, line 19, at end insert:— '(1A) Where subsection (1)(a) applies, a defendant's propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged may (without prejudice to any other way of doing so) be established by evidence that he has been convicted of—
	(a) an offence of the same description as the one with which he is charged, or
	(b) an offence of the same category as the one with which he is charged. (1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply in the case of a particular defendant if the court is satisfied, by reason of the length of time since the conviction or for any other reason, that it would be unjust for it to apply in his case.
	(1C) For the purposes of subsection (1A)—
	(a) two offences are of the same description as each other if the statement of the offence in a written charge or indictment would, in each case, be in the same terms;
	(b) two offences are of the same category as each other if they belong to the same category of offences prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State. (1D) A category prescribed by an order under subsection (1C)(b) must consist of offences of the same type.'.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 121 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 121B. I have already spoken to the amendment.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 121 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 121B.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

126Leave out Clause 101
	126AThe Commons insist on their disagreement with the Lords in their amendment, do not insist on their Amendment No. 131H to which the Lords have disagreed, and propose the following amendment to the words restored to the Bill by the disagreement insisted upon—
	126B Page 65, line 47, at end insert:— '(2) In proceedings for an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant when aged 21 or over, evidence of his conviction for an offence when under the age of 14 is not admissible unless—
	(a) both of the offences are triable only on indictment, and
	(b) the court is satisfied that the interests of justice require the evidence to be admissible. (3) Subsection (2) applies in addition to section 93.'.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 126 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 126B. I have already spoken to this amendment.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 126 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 126B.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, having striven mightily in the interests of young people who find themselves in trouble with the justice system, I take this opportunity to thank the Government and, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for the concession on Clause 101. A cross-party consensus in your Lordships' House has tried to improve the Bill on behalf of young people. I believe that that concession presages a very constructive way forward. After the Queen's Speech and in the new Session I believe that we shall look at issues that relate to youth justice. I look forward to the constructive consultation that we shall undertake in your Lordships' House with the Minister and noble Lords on all Benches. I thank the Government very much, as I believe that the concession is a step in the right direction.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have one thank you to make, but it is one that I really wish to express. The staff who have served us have done so brilliantly and extremely well. On behalf of the whole House I thank them: the Whips officers, the Doorkeepers and all those who have kept us sane as the Bill has made its way through the House.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I endorse every word that the noble Baroness has said. If I did not make it clear before, I stress that the workload that she assumes is enormous—it is too high a level of work. I hope that she may receive more support from her colleagues in the coming Session. I thank her and I join with her in thanking all the staff.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Adjournment

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.50 p.m. to await the Royal Commission. The thanks have already been made, but I particularly want to thank the Public Bill Office, which has been quite heroic in its work today. I am sure that the House will allow me to say that—we do not often do this, but I intend to set a precedent—special thanks are due to those 27 per cent who are proud to hold the title of Labour Members of this House, who, day-in, day-out, have managed by a miracle of the British constitution to sustain the legislative programme of a democratically elected government in the other House. My very special thanks are due to them.
	Moved, that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.50 p.m.—(Lord Grocott.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, first, I should like to make clear to the House that the Motion to adjourn the House has on this occasion been agreed by the usual channels. It is not always so, but is so in this case. Secondly, I should like to associate my side of the House with the thanks expressed by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms to the Public Bill Office and to the others who have helped us in these particularly difficult last couple of days, as we have struggled to reach agreement and to get it all incorporated in these amazing pieces of paper that come before us. I am sure that there are lawyers who understand it all, but to most of us it is a major task and we appreciate the work done.
	The Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms paid tribute to his supporters in this House. I should like to do the same to mine. We have during this Bill, and on certain other Bills in the course of this Session, had great support, not only from Members of my party but from Members of the Liberal Democrat Party, from a considerable number of Cross-Benchers—even in the Lobbies today—and, indeed, from a number of Labour Members.

Lord Roper: My Lords, this has been a complex day or two for us in this House—indeed a complex week. As has been said by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, we have relied to an enormous extent on the pieces of paper provided to us, to those who have sat on the Woolsack and to the Officers of the House. The Public Bill Office has been able to turn around the various movements between the two Houses in a quite extraordinary way. It has made sure that we have been able to do our job properly, even if at times it has been a little difficult for some of us to follow all the minor points in its drafting—but we are quite convinced that it is right.
	Perhaps I may also say that I think that the whole House has played an active part, but none more so—as will be clear when the percentages come out—than those who sit on these Benches. I am glad to know that yesterday more than 80 per cent of the Liberal Democrats were participating in the work of this House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.33 to 8.50 p.m.]

Royal Commission

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it not being convenient for Her Majesty personally to be present here this day, she has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared for proroguing this present Parliament.
	Then the Lords Commissioners (being the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos), the Lord Strathclyde, the Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the Lord Donaldson of Lymington) being present and the Commons being at the Bar, the Lord Chancellor said: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, Her Majesty, not thinking fit personally to be present here at this time, has been pleased to cause a Commission to be issued under the Great Seal, and thereby given Her Royal Assent to divers Acts, the Titles whereof are particularly mentioned, and by the said Commission has commanded us to declare and notify Her Royal Assent to the said several Acts, in the presence of you the Lords and Commons assembled for that purpose; and has also assigned to us and other Lords directed full power and authority in Her Majesty's name to prorogue this present Parliament. Which Commission you will now hear read.
	A Commission for Royal Assent and Prorogation was read.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, and by virtue of the Commission which has been now read, We do declare and notify to you, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, that Her Majesty has given Her Royal Assent to the several Acts in the Commission mentioned; and the Clerks are required to pass the same in the usual Form and Words.

Royal Assent

The following Acts received the Royal Assent:
	Water Act,
	Anti-social Behaviour Act,
	Courts Act,
	Ragwort Control Act,
	Extradition Act,
	Sexual Offences Act,
	Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act,
	Criminal Justice Act,
	Transas Group Act.

Prorogation: Her Majesty's Speech

Her Majesty's most gracious Speech was then delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command) as follows:

The Queen: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	My Government have taken action in support of major programmes of reform in the priority areas of crime, health and transport.
	My Government are committed to reforming the criminal justice system, to deliver justice for all and to safeguard the interests of victims, witnesses and communities.
	An Act has been passed to provide the police and other agencies with effective tools to tackle anti-social behaviour.
	Legislation has been passed to reform sentencing arrangements and to modernise criminal procedures to protect the public and reduce re-offending.
	An Act has also been passed reforming the courts system. This will allow magistrates' courts and the Crown Court to work more effectively together under a single organisation and will reform the system for enforcing fines and other non-custodial penalties.
	Legislation has also been passed modernising the laws on sexual offences, strengthening the framework of penalties for sex offenders to protect the public.
	In addition, legislation has been passed improving international co-operation in tackling serious crime, including terrorism, and modernising the arrangements for international mutual assistance to prosecute criminals.
	My Government continue to modernise the delivery of healthcare based on the founding principles of the National Health Service. Legislation has been passed to introduce incentives to ensure that hospital discharges are not delayed and that those needing community care are fully supported.
	Legislation has been passed to devolve power and resources to frontline staff, giving greater patient choice and more freedom to successful hospitals while increasing their accountability to local communities and introducing independent health and social care inspectorates.
	Legislation has been passed to improve the delivery of local services through better financial management and greater freedom for councils.
	An Act has been passed to improve railway and transport safety, establishing a Rail Accident Investigation Body with effective evidence-gathering powers, reforming the body responsible for regulating the railways and introducing alcohol testing on board maritime vessels and in civil aviation.
	Draft legislation has been brought forward on a number of matters including civil contingencies, housing, nuclear liabilities, corruption and mental incapacity.
	Members of the House of Commons,
	I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	My Government continue to work closely with the political parties and the Irish Government to secure the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. Legislation has been passed which establishes an Independent Monitoring Commission to report on the ongoing commitments connected with the implementation of the Belfast agreement. An Act has also been passed amending legislation on policing in Northern Ireland.
	My Government maintain their commitment to devolution in Scotland and Wales. Legislation has been passed reforming the provision of health services in Wales.
	Legislation has been passed providing for the holding of referendums in any English region except London on the establishment of elected regional assemblies and other preparations for the implementation of elected regional government.
	In addition, legislation has been passed to create a new regulatory framework for the communications sector to promote competition and investment, establishing a new regulatory body, implementing European Union telecoms directives and reforming rules on media ownership.
	An Act has been passed modernising and streamlining the law governing premises selling alcohol, providing public entertainment and late-night refreshment, including important measures for tackling anti-social behaviour.
	An Act has been passed allowing the Secretary of State to specify the pay, terms and conditions of the Fire Service and to direct the Fire Service on its use of facilities and assets.
	Legislation has been passed improving water management and conservation, establishing an independent Consumer Council for Water, reforming the regulatory system for water and promoting competition in the water industry.
	An Act has also been passed providing for the development of a strategy for reducing the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill and help ensure the UK meets its climate change commitments.
	Other important measures have been enacted.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the state visit of His Excellency the President of Russia in June. We are pleased to receive the state visit of His Excellency the President of the United States this week.
	My Government have played an active role in combating the global threat from terrorism and preventing the development or use of weapons of mass destruction by hostile states. My Government have worked to help publish and implement a road map for peace in the Middle East, and to support the rebuilding of Afghanistan.
	My Government took part in international action to ensure Iraq's compliance with its obligations under UN resolutions. Iraq is now on its way to a better future, free and at peace with its neighbours. Political and economic reconstruction are proceeding apace and for the first time in Iraq's history it has government institutions which reflect the diversity of its people and uphold human rights and the rule of law.
	My Government helped secure the lifting of UN sanctions against Libya following the latter's compliance with the demands of the Security Council, and have supported international negotiations with Iran and North Korea.
	My Government were active in ensuring the decision of the European Council last December to issue formal invitations to 10 countries to join the European Union in May 2004. Legislation has been enacted to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Accession Treaty with the new member states.
	Through the Convention on the Future of Europe and the subsequent intergovernmental conference, my Government have participated actively in efforts to agree a new Constitutional Treaty for the European Union to equip it for the challenges of enlargement.
	My Government published their assessment of the five economic tests on whether to recommend entry into the single European currency.
	My Government helped to achieve agreement at the NATO summit last November to invite seven countries to join the alliance, and have continued to support these countries in their preparations for membership.
	My Government were heavily involved in the continuing development of the European security and defence policy, including the conclusion of agreements between the EU and NATO for the use of NATO assets and capabilities for European security and defence policy military operations. My Government supported, and British personnel participated in, the first three European security and defence policy operations: a police mission in Bosnia and military crisis management operations in Macedonia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
	The Millennium Development Goals remained at the forefront of my Government's commitment to global poverty reduction. My Government have worked with partners in the UN, the G8 and other bodies to make progress towards these goals, particularly by ensuring support for developing countries' own plans such as the New Partnership for Africa's Development.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has been now read We do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to the 26th day of November, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday, the 26th day of this instant November.
	Parliament was prorogued at a quarter past nine o'clock.